[century242]

In this day and age where the 35mm is apparantly becoming a thing of the past, this brings up a question of....I suppose one could say ethics in photography.

With the advent of technology, digital cameras, photoshop and fancy computers, is it ok to photoshop one's pics to make them better?

I can take 100 pics and out of that one will be excellent, but I can photoshop (psp x for me) 5 or 6 more and they will be of equal quality.
If I had a picture that I thought was 90% magazine quality, would it be ethical on my part to tweek it in a few places to make it 100%?

Thoughts? Ideas? Questions?

[SVRy_Steve]

Depends :D

If you are talking about contrast, color balance, saturation, burning, dodging, cropping, minor removal of wires with a clone or healing brush tool, it's certainly not a problem.

Many photographers shoot good skies (with the same time of day and lighting) and replace boring skies. I clone out litter in the forground without a worry. If I notice litter and can safely get to it, I pick it up before taking the picture though!

If you want to tie the president to the tracks and put him in front of a train, it's probably not real ethical unless you are selling to National Enquirer :lol:

I certainly did most of the above in the darkroom clear back into the late 60's, it was just harder. I mark all my colorized images, so there is no doubt of the fact it started life in B&W.

Steve

[ckawahara]

In my 35mm days, I manipulated my images...albiet not to the degree we can do so today. Changed developer, change temp/time, changed paper contrast, dodged, burned, even used two negatives to make one image. Even elected to use b/w instead of Kodachome...then even then there was multiple options of the film and paper type and silver /fiber content.

Technology just makes it easier...I think it's the creative juices that make the end result a good one or a bad one...but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.

Use the technology to its max.....achieve the max.

[century242]

hmm, ok. that is what the consensus has been in all the replies to my posts have been.

[captain_bazza]

Having recently acquired a new digital camera I think this would be a useful thread to keep. I'm still learning the in's and out's of the new camera and this might be a place for post queries on the subject (Digital Photography).

Cheers Bazza
:lol:

[SVRy_Steve]

Ansel Adams developed the "Zone System" to control tonality, contrast, and expand or contract the tonal range that black and white film could capture. I studied this extensively in school and at one of his seminars. He would have loved today's abilities!

Now, if the tonal range exceeds the sensor's ability to record data (blown out whites or shadows) one can make two or more shots on a tripod, one to get the shadow detail, and one to capture the highlight detail, then combine the best of both. It is called HDR (high dynamic range) photography. PhotoShop CS2 has tools to make it easier.

I used to cart a 4x5 view camera into the mountains, to get super high quality images. 51 pounds of camera gear in my pack, with 6 film holders (12 exposures) and a changing bag so I could load more film. In 1970, black and white cost about $.40 per shot and Ektachrome about $3.00 with processing. Now I use a panoramic head on my tripod and stitch multiple images into one 40-80 megapixel image for that same quality. I can get by with as little as 12 pounds of equipment (heavy tripod is most of it) and the cost............

The eye is very selective in what it sees, leaving out things that distract. Often the scene you remember is not the same as the scene the camera photographs. Impact, colors, intensity often lose in a literal translation (straight print). Photographers since the beginning of the medium have tried to overcome these shortfalls with whatever tools are available. On the camera by exposure, certain films, filters, even masks in front of the lens, and in the darkroom with processing and multiple printing techniques too. Rarely is a great photo "straight".

A railroad photographer duo, Beebe and Clegg certainly used orange and red filters, then heavily burned in the skies so smoke and steam would show better. In quite a few of their images, I consider the effect pretty heavy handed, but it was the style of the times!

Unfortunately, some seem to take things to extremes. There are magazines that want their photos to "POP". One that comes to mind is Birds and Blooms, a gardening and birder magazine. All colors are super saturated, attractive in a way, but so intense that they do POP your eyes out.

In my "fine art" photos, I try to make the final image coincide with my vision when I saw the scene. I avoid the extreme processed look, but I do what I can to make the image look "right" to me.

One thing that is extremely important in processing your images: get a monitor calibration tool from Pantone or other manufacturers! They only cost around $100, and it makes a world of difference. If your monitor is not calibrated to the same standards as other monitors, the image may look great on yours, and terrible on any other.