Where to draw the line? (on PP?)

[Guy Scharf]

As everyone has said, it depends on the planned use of the photo, any ethical considerations associated with that use, and the time you wish to invest the image. For me, a major factor is the number of images, how "valuable" they are, and how long I have to complete PP.

For example, if I have an image whose usage is "fine art," then there are no bounds to what I might do in PP. The primary consideration is time and value. I also take photos to document vegetation near land boundaries. With those photos, I will adjust only white balance, exposure and contrast; I won't even crop. For PJ-like usage, I often crop, dodge and burn, etc., but don't remove or add elements to the image.
--
My photos: http://photos.moxis.com

 

[pmong]

Kent,

Thanks. I will cut and paste this into a document for future reference.

(Coffee break time, so time to respond.)

Bunch of workflow links.... not sure if they're all 'alive' but a few
might help....
While the ACR workflow is there you'd probably be better off
searching for a specific LR workflow...

Good beginner’s tutorial on photoshop

http://www.extropia.com/tutorials/photoshop/toc.html
http://www.dwphotoshop.com/photoshop/
more tuts
http://www.michielsen.info/photoshop/index.htm
http://www.tutorialized.com/tutorials/Photoshop/1
http://arstechnica.com/guides/tweaks/mystery.ars
http://www.zuberphotographics.com/

Good beginner’s tutorial on retouch workflow

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/instant_photoshop.shtml

http://ppathw3.cals.cornell.edu/PhotoLab/KnowledgeBase/DigiPhotoTips/PhotoshopBasicTool.htm
http://www.worth1000.com/tutorial.asp?sid=161112&page=1

http://www.arraich.com/ps_intro.htm
see my posts in the thread vtc, etc.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=9187446
action
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=13975398
http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm#Kents_Quick_Retouch
tutorials:
http://www.worth1000.com/tutorial.asp

Advanced workflow

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/process.shtml
Step-by-Step Processing of Photographs using Photoshop.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/workflow1.shtml

Eddie Tapp sample chapter – workspace/workflow

http://downloads.indesignmag.com/cp/20060614workflow.pdf

The Ideal Digital Photographer's Workflow, Part's 1 2 &3.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2003/12/17/digital_photography.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2004/01/21/digital_photography.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2004/02/24/digital_photography.html

Raw workflow vs. Photoshop CS.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=10178439

Digital workflow - Michielsen

http://www.michielsen.info/photoshop/workflow/

Workflow

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=4066080

Workflow actions

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=4474932

--
Kent

http://www.pbase.com/kentc
tutorial archive:
http://porg.4t.com/KentC.html

 

[pmong]

Ronny,

Thanks. Good to know that others have the same question. Yes, hanging around this forum does greatly help me discover new possibilities. I plan to continue to read and participate as time permits. And, hopefully from time to time to ask for advice and suggestions.

Also, didn't think people were making fun of me, but rather the point. On the one hand, the answer is so obvious (each according his/her own), but on the other hand, the question is not so easily answered (how do I get from here to there, and where is "there" in the universe of possibilities). My hope is to listen to and gain from others.

Don't take us wrong. We are not making fun of you at all. You asked
a question that we all struggle with on a daily basis. JYD's answer
really couldn't be improved on, IMO, except for a small name change.
LOL No really, I just asked a friend of mine the same question
recently...well it was very close to the same queston. Just hang
around in the forum and see what these folks can do with different
images and you will realize that all images can be improved in ways
you wouldn't have imagined. As time goes on, you will develope a
style and better eye for what you think can be done. Don't hold
back. The sky is the limit.

Ronny

 

[pmong]

Conrad,

I actually enjoy the humor, so no apology need. I do appreciate your concern and your expression. You have been helpful to me in the past, and I admire your work.

At the same time, I am struggling with finding a good approach to using my time. The new responses are helping me on that point. Again, I am hoping that people can stimulate my thinking, giving me ideas that I have not conceived.

In the future, I will try to join in on the fun.

--

Exactly what Ronny said!! It is all in good fun with each other.
SORRY!!

It really is very subjective though what some will do in the post
processing world. Some do go to extreme's and others simply don't
believe in it. This is clearly a retouching forum, so it is
basically understood that is what we all do here, along with having
some fun ocassionally.

Hope you understand it was NOT meant to offend you at all. Again,
sorry if it came across that way.
Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

 

[pmong]

So, is cranking up the saturation or a smidge consider outside the bounds of photo journalism? In the old days, some dark room adjustments were considered acceptable (burning, dodging, cropping, using different contrast papers). How much of that translate into PP in the digital world? I think one of the biggest fears is that PP has so much potential that just opening up the door may be a pandora's box. I notice that there is now a way to authentic photographs for photo journalism. I have thought about offering my service at some time to a local newspaper, so this would of interest to me.

This was in today's NY Times.

Do you guys think that the photographer touched up (cranked up the
saturation) on the nails to make them stand out even more? Maybe just
a smidge? Or maybe not?

 

[pmong]

GCam,

Ramble on! I like you point about "can" and "need". For me, one of the bigger questions is how much of my limited time do I spend going out to shoot and how much time do I schedule for PP. I know that balance varies from individuals, and also between participants in one forum to another. I treat PP as I did in the old days when I spent time in the darkroom. I spent about a 1/3 or a little more in the darkroom, and I think I will initially try that this summer.

In the end, it is my goal to have a half dozen photographs in my portfolio, with a larger number that I can share with others.

I will try to keep from falling into the trap of doing too much.

One thing I am discovering is that with additional skills, I want to go back and reprocess some of my previous work. Just have to figure out how to fit that in.

I can easily see what can be done to most of my photographs.

Pmong: big difference between "what can be done" and "what needs to
be done."

That is where you need to draw the line if you are drawing time
constraints. The rest is subjective interpretation of the image.
But it's how you feel, not how any of us feels about an image. That
doesn't mean that a file cannot be "dressed" up.
If you look at some of the work here, you will see that some of us
are playing with all the tools at our disposal to see what we "can"
do, while some are improving the photo without changing the basics,
whether it be lighting, color, etc.

One of the pitfalls is that the more knowledge you acquire, the
greater the desire to do more than might be required for an image.
Again, determine what needs to be done, not necessarily what you want
to do.

And many talented folks here have developed actions to meet specific
needs -color fixes, WB issues, etc. - too numerous to mention here
but you can find them at http://www.atncentral .

Most cameras and inkjet printers and the mini-lab printers in the
Wal-Marts, Costcos and Walgreens can produce acceptable quality with
nothing done to the files. Obviously this changes with the skill
level of the photographer and the employees of the labs.

Now I'm rambling. gc

 

[pmong]

Got it. The humor part!

Was that photographer REALLY looking at the nails, or was it his
excuse to take the picture of the girl on the left??? Got a sharper
image??????? LOL
Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

 

[pmong]

good point! didn't even think about that, but that's cus I'm a girl! lol

No sharper image, I'm sorry. The original image in the paper is
pretty bad too. Newspaper printing, what can I say...

 

[pmong]

Thanks, this helps answer a question in a previous post. So, general principle (today) is ok to improve quality of picture without changing the content. Will keep that in mind.

I once worked as a photographer for a small town newspaper, and my
duties included the darkroom too. It is acceptable to "edit" a
photo, by cropping, dodging and burning; IOW, improving the quality
of the photo without changing the content. gc

 

[pmong]

Elight,

Thanks for the comment. Yes, agree that it is mainly subjective and and personal. I have the good fortunate to not have a client or clients, although I do shoot for people and groups. I have great freedom in showing what I have done, and they have the freedom to use or not use.

Interesting point about the Beatles (or any artists). Yes, enormous freedom, but also some constraints. I am not an expert, but it is worth considering the following. Some commercial -- that is, most songs are within certain time limits. Some cultural -- that is, the beat, etc. that are so ingrain that we often don't realize it. Some artistic styles -- that is, even revolutionary new styles such as jazz begin to develop a style.

Sometime it is useful for me to understand these constraints (or guidelines), the ideas and thinking behind them. I am not asking people to tell me what to do, just what the do so I can consider their ideas. In the end, I have the freedom to use or not use, but hopefully I am better off knowing them.

Just my opinion, and I do enjoy your view.

I know that there are no simple answers

There are no answers to this. you do what you want to do with a
photo. It's entirely subjective and personal. do as much or as little
PP as you like or what a client asks for.
It's an art form and there no rules, guidelines, answers from the
experts. A single photo can have one or more versions if you like.
The Beatles didn't sit around asking "how long should this song be?
How much time should it take? Horns or piano? Someone please tell us
how to do this song!
Do what you like.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smckearnan/

 

[pmong]

Again, thanks, and now for an additional response.

I am struggling to find my style and approach. I had a style year's ago, but after returning to photography in a digital and PP world, I want to explore new possibilities. I have been very open to experimenting when the opportunity present itself here. In doing so, I often ask many questions so I can get a better understanding of how to replicate things. The journey is to experience directly as much as possible, so I can know better what I personally like and don't like. First-hand experience is better for me to judge different approaches. I have done extreme PP that I don't post here, but even that has proven useful for me. The forum helps me explore.

Interesting comment on B&W and color. I am partial to B&W because I started with B&W film. The other reason is that I do not have a good sense of how to best use colors. That is something else I would like to struggle with this summer.

As most here, we develope our owns likes and dislikes and then we go
from there. Personally, I am not a big fan of black and white
images, but that is just me. I like color. But numerous people do
like Black and White and ask many questions here on the best way to
convert images to Black and White.

Others like sketch photos, some like smudging, and others, like Ray
Gusselli, goes absolutely wack-o overboard with cars, motorcycles,
and other vehicles, (and that is not a bad thing either as he does a
tremendous job at it). A member by the name of Scott Deardorff is
unbelievable with smudge paintings, and I mean unbelievable. So much
so that others, including Ray, have taken his course and are trying
their hands at it also.

Then we have numerous, Master Retouchers here, that simply specialize
in helping correct things like color casts, white balance, blown out
skies and other areas, etc. So, you can see that many different
things go on here and you will just have to decide what you want to
learn and then go from there.

The other thing we do, is to try to have some fun (which you have
witnessed in this thread) at others expenses, and that is just part
of the comraderie that goes on here.

Sometimes, it can get a little heated or competitiive also, and you
will learn to either tune it out, or have your say. Either way,
have fun with retouching, and go slow in what you learn, as Photoshop
can be overwhelming at first.

Signed,
The Birdman
Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

 

[pmong]

Guy,

Thanks. Good to hear a consistent answer to PJ. Will keep that in mind.

I do want to try some "fine art". I had a look at your photos on your web site. Great work.

As everyone has said, it depends on the planned use of the photo, any
ethical considerations associated with that use, and the time you
wish to invest the image. For me, a major factor is the number of
images, how "valuable" they are, and how long I have to complete PP.

For example, if I have an image whose usage is "fine art," then there
are no bounds to what I might do in PP. The primary consideration is
time and value. I also take photos to document vegetation near land
boundaries. With those photos, I will adjust only white balance,
exposure and contrast; I won't even crop. For PJ-like usage, I often
crop, dodge and burn, etc., but don't remove or add elements to the
image.
--
My photos: http://photos.moxis.com

 

[elight]

I read somewhere that when PP people or portraits, the subject's response should be: "What a beautiful photo you produced!" - not "I've been Photoshopped." Or something like that.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smckearnan/

 

[pmong]

Good point. Thanks. Interestingly, I remember one posted portrait on this site where the client liked the PP (some aggressive skin smoothing) while some forum members felt the photo was too over processed. I guess most people, including myself, would like to see ourselves in a much better light (and fewer imperfections).

I read somewhere that when PP people or portraits, the subject's
response should be: "What a beautiful photo you produced!" - not
"I've been Photoshopped." Or something like that.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smckearnan/