Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Kam on April 16, 2009, 11:27:13 am

Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Kam on April 16, 2009, 11:27:13 am
This story http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708 (http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708) is generating a lot of discussion on other forums.
What does everyone here think about such adjustments of photographs for journalistic purposes. Should we really be judging raw images?

I'll reserve my opinions, but I'll ask Michael and you - what do you think?
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 16, 2009, 12:38:01 pm
I think the judges have lost their minds ...

Things that were perfectly acceptable in the darkroom have become unacceptable in the lightroom.

Why?  I would understand if you took a subject from one capture and inserted it into a different background.

There is a line, but in my opinion these images did not cross the line.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Kam on April 16, 2009, 12:49:12 pm
I would tend to agree Jeremy.
A subject about this topic that has come up is that complete desaturation of colour (conversion to BW) is permissible, but saturation of colour is up to the judges discretion.
Strange in my opinion.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: TimG on April 16, 2009, 04:52:51 pm
Actually, I see how this is "could" be an issue.  If journalism is about reporting the facts, then shouldn't photojournalism do the same?  I see the saturation boost being perfectly acceptable provided it is shot as editorial, which is open to interpretation, whereas journalism isn't (or at least shouldn't be in a purist sense).
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Ken Bennett on April 16, 2009, 05:34:38 pm
One image in particular, the aerial shot, stands out in my mind. The original raw is very flat and exposed to the right, at least when viewed using the "default Camera RAW settings" (which are almost *never* the right settings.) However, a simple Auto Levels gets an image that is very close to the photo that was rejected by the judges as being manipulated.

I suppose the photographer could have shot jpegs, using the highest contrast and saturation levels, and those would have been okay (under the theory that an in-camera jpeg doesn't lie.)

The other photos are similar. The original raw files are very flat, and I expect they don't bear a lot of resemblance to what the photographer *saw* with his eyes.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: kers on April 16, 2009, 05:39:26 pm
the photographs are so clearly artificially changed photoshop that they loose the idea of being real. Nobody will take these photographs for reflecting reality.

The fact that the contents is not photoshopped seems suprising when you first see the shots.

So the contents of the photographs has not been changed only the presentation of the contents. In this way it is not more than a personal style of the photographer and therefore i find it acceptable.

We have to realize that every picture is a non reality - only these are more obvious so.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 16, 2009, 05:45:40 pm
Would a fast aperture and narrow DOF disqualify an image?   Does the fact that my camera "sees" detail across 10-12 stops of dynamic range but my eyes/brain can see about 20 figure into this equation?  

I just don't know what this objective reality is that these judges expected to see in the final image ... nor how to capture it with a camera - using film or any known digital technique ... I guess I can never be a photojournalist ...

Oh well.

Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: dalethorn on April 16, 2009, 10:45:20 pm
I sat through part of a presentation tonight by a photojournalist who is a professor at Kent State, and who used to be an editor at the local Knight-Ridder paper. She referred to the audience as "rock and tree" photographers, which she said is the common term photojournalists apply to nature and landscape photographers.

Her presentation was on "Editing your photos for maximum impact", and started off with cropping - "always crop tight, very tight" she said. She did state that Photoshop was used only in special circumstances, and it's a no-no for most news photos, since the media have to earn the trust of a suspicious public.  The crops I did see were extreme, since she showed the original and cropped images for the audience to judge.  I didn't hear any complaints.

Looking back on the hour I sat there, I don't know why she was there, or what was going on in the minds of the photo club staff who invited her. It was like being in an opposite universe, where everything was backwards.  This being a conservative part of the country as far as photojournalism goes, I can only imagine what goes on in New York.  I certainly wouldn't waste time with the L.A. Times or L.A. Weekly.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: MichaelAlanBielat on April 16, 2009, 11:32:22 pm
Ansel Adams said something to the effect of:
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."

Think that still applies in today's digital world?

In my opinion, photojournalism is in a class all of it's own. Images should reflect the realty so nothing more than just cropping, exposure and contrast should be messed with.

For everyone else though, I believe that Ansel's quote still holds some truth...

Well, aside from the fact that we can perform our edits and then save it to our hard drive so it never changes where he had to re-produce every print and there are subtle variations that come with that process...
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Nick Rains on April 17, 2009, 01:06:35 am
Quote from: Kam
This story http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708 (http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708) is generating a lot of discussion on other forums.
What does everyone here think about such adjustments of photographs for journalistic purposes. Should we really be judging raw images?

I'll reserve my opinions, but I'll ask Michael and you - what do you think?

 I don't like the shots but there is not much here that slightly underexposed Velvia and a grad ND filter would not have produced. A bit of d+b and there you have it. Why can B+W shots be dodged and burned but not colour?

What a crock...

But I agree that RAW images are no more true than anything else, including film. In fact less so as they are often 'overexposed' for maximum tonal capture.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: pegelli on April 17, 2009, 01:17:41 am
The rules of the contest say:

"Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure. You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image's original expression"

My personal belief is that the judges went too far in the interpretation of their own rules because I think main changes the photographer used between developing the raws (some have extreme ETTR for other IQ reasons) and the finished publication is levels, saturation and contrast. I agree the final pictures are quite contrasty and saturated, but I think this type of processing increases the impact of the message the photographer is giving about the environment he shot.

In my mind he did not alter the colors of his original capture (contrary to what one of the judges says), we all know that especially with level adjustments the saturation gets impacted. That's why the very pale yellow chair is now bright yellow, that's why an almost grey wall (with just a tad blue hue) is now bright blue. As far as I can see no colors were "replaced" by others, only relative luminosity and saturation changes.  I wouldn't know how to do it, but I think with extreme developing techniques you could have produced color slides that looked close to his final images, and therefore the series should in my mind not be disqualified.

Just my $0,05, but remember when you submit pictures for a contest, the jury is always right. The only freedom we have is to disagree with them.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Kam on April 17, 2009, 01:22:39 am
Quote from: Nick Rains
I don't like the shots but there is not much here that slightly underexposed Velvia and a grad ND filter would not have produced. A bit of d+b and there you have it. Why can B+W shots be dodged and burned but not colour?

What a crock...

But I agree that RAW images are no more true than anything else, including film. In fact less so as they are often 'overexposed' for maximum tonal capture.

Nick,

I think you hit the nail on the head, as well as another previous poster who mentioned highly contrasted jpegs. Raw files are just that... raw data that requires editing to bring the scene back to 'reality' from the what is created within a digital capture. In film, using a high contrast film and a filter may lead to similar results.

Is the general public, including perhaps the judges, still viewing film as more 'real' than raw? Is it? Is it on par or less 'real'?
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: TaoMaas on April 17, 2009, 12:45:01 pm
Quote from: Nick Rains
I don't like the shots but there is not much here that slightly underexposed Velvia and a grad ND filter would not have produced. A bit of d+b and there you have it.
 Sorry...Velvia wouldn't have come close to the amount of saturation in those pics.  Or certainly, not under the circumstances as seen in the RAW files.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: TaoMaas on April 17, 2009, 12:46:26 pm
Quote from: MichaelAlanBielat
For everyone else though, I believe that Ansel's quote still holds some truth...


"Some" truth, maybe, but it's totally off for slide shooters.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Geoff Wittig on April 17, 2009, 08:27:27 pm
Quote from: Kam
This story http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708 (http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708) is generating a lot of discussion on other forums.
What does everyone here think about such adjustments of photographs for journalistic purposes. Should we really be judging raw images?

I'll reserve my opinions, but I'll ask Michael and you - what do you think?

The relevant criterion has to be the photographer's intent and how he/she represents the resulting image. If these photographs were represented as journalism, then to me there's no question about it; they are way over the line. This degree of manipulation is a gross abuse of the viewers' expectation that the images depict reality with reasonable fidelity. The difference is day and night; the dreary grey reality of Haiti versus a dayglo tonemapped bizarro world.

If on the other hand the photographs were explicitly represented to be an artistic interpretation, all bets are off. But that must be made explicit!
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 17, 2009, 10:08:48 pm
Choose not to award them prizes? - sure ... Disqualify them?  Seems like an over-reaction.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Justan on April 18, 2009, 03:49:10 pm
Quote from: Kam
This story http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708 (http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708) is generating a lot of discussion on other forums.
What does everyone here think about such adjustments of photographs for journalistic purposes. Should we really be judging raw images?


Interesting topic.

It was a beautifully done work. But I’m not entirely sure the judging was completely arbitrary, if at the expense of being a mockery of the judge. I think the reason the decision was made is because the original RAW image sucked. Compared to the original the work is a very highly produced work.

This raises the question of how far to “sweeten” an image for competition? If fidelity to the original image is a core value of the competition, then this suggests it has to be done right in the camera.

The idiotic hypocrisy of this case is that they acknowledge and accept normal work flow techniques but insist that someone should restrain themselves. That is why the judge needs an, uh, attitude adjustment. Maybe several smart raps to the head would help. After all, it would be insane to have a tool such as Photoshop and not take as full of advantage of it as possible.

But…but if the judge is insisting on his or her notion of fidelity to the original image as basis for their decision, they do have a duplicitous kind of point.

Sadly, the judge falls along the footfalls of judges who criticized Caravaggio for his use of vivid, luminous colors and dramatic lighting.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Anders_HK on April 18, 2009, 03:55:42 pm
Quote from: MichaelAlanBielat
Ansel Adams said something to the effect of:
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."

Think that still applies in today's digital world?

In my opinion, photojournalism is in a class all of it's own. Images should reflect the realty so nothing more than just cropping, exposure and contrast should be messed with.

For everyone else though, I believe that Ansel's quote still holds some truth...

Well, aside from the fact that we can perform our edits and then save it to our hard drive so it never changes where he had to re-produce every print and there are subtle variations that come with that process...

Hi

There comes a point when too much processing becomes like painting on a photograph. To me that is what those competing photos look like. Not even Ansel did that. In my opinion that is not what photography is about. At such extremes it becomes a different line of art. Ansel created images firstly at the capture moment. I shoot landscape and search for best light. The competing photographs do not seem captured at such times, but seem "re-" created to such by very extreme processing, which looks "fake" after careful observation. I am a landscape shooter and also shoot people living traditional lives on travels. I tend to agree with the judges, processing was too extreme and much beyond what you can expect from different film types, or what Ansel did in print process. To compare the processing of the competing photos to what Ansel did would be an insult to landscape photography, albeit I think calling them painted would be better description. This was on journalism though, but... if we shall resort to simple snaps and then creating in computer an environment that we thought or imagined..., then... why do we need advanced / professional photographers? Seems would suffice with anyone carrying a digicam and not knowing quite when or how to shoot. Journalism should proper represent the scenes, should it not? And... clearly those shots did not with such extreme processing.

Above is my frank and honest opinion.

Regards
Anders
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 18, 2009, 04:12:03 pm
Quote from: Justan
I think the reason the decision was made is because the original RAW image sucked

They didn't suck ... they were exposed in a manner appropriate for digital and alien to a film shooter ... I still think the judges are imposing an objective reality where none exists.

Should people NOT be allowed to white balance and correct the exposure if the 'as shot' white balance was UNI-WB the exposure was "to the right"?

The camera standard jpeg and the raw converter defaults are very strange benchmarks.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Justan on April 19, 2009, 09:59:10 am
> They didn't suck ...

Based on the results the RAW file was obviously workable but so flat that most of the details are not apparent. Were I to come across something that listless, I’d be thinking that it was going to be a lot of work in photoshop to get it where I wanted. Evidently the judge had a similar view.

> they were exposed in a manner appropriate for digital and alien to a film shooter ...

If you say so. The only times my RAW images are that lacking in color is when they are poorly exposed.

> I still think the judges are imposing an objective reality where none exists.

I mostly agree, except there was not much that was truly objective in the judge’s call.

> Should people NOT be allowed to white balance and correct the exposure…

That is the question. I would say it depends on the stated rules of the competition. This competition allowed work-flow like changes, so it should have not been an issue. It was the judge that screwed up IMO. But clearly the source was so lacking in color that the judge thought the work too highly produced for the competition.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 19, 2009, 10:22:47 am
I asked: "Should people NOT be allowed to white balance and correct the exposure?"

Response:  "That is the question. I would say it depends on the stated rules of the competition."

And I would say that such a competition is just at odds with the medium and best practices.  Shooting RAW, it makes sense to use an "incorrect" WB (UNIWB or whatnot) to create an "acccurate" histogram in-camera so that ETTR is possible without blowing out the highlights.  This exposure will look like cr@p at the camera or converter defaults, but will ultimately allow the best "print" - whether physical or not.

To hold a competition where the majority of people will shoot digital RAW and then make the most sensible and medium-appropriate workflow illegal is just luddite.

To me it is like holding a cooking contest and making the use of too much salt and pepper grounds for disqualification.  Like I said, grounds for losing?  Sure.  Grounds for being DQ'd?  No way.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: ckimmerle on April 19, 2009, 12:51:43 pm
This was not a photo contest, it was a photojournalism contest.....a significant difference. Some of you seem to have little, if any, knowledge of photojournalistic ethics and practices (not an insult, just an observation). Please allow me to briefly explain as I have more than 20 years experience:

A photojournalist is allowed to use whatever lens, exposure, aperture or shutter speed necessary to help tell the story as the photographer deems necessary. This is the equivalent to the selection of prose used by a writer.  These conventions are apparent and fairly well understood by the general public. An exception would apply if the captured scene differs dramatically from the actual scene. For instance, using exposure to make daylight look like night, etc.

As for post-capture processing or darkroom work, of course white balance and exposure corrections are allowed (to correct for film/digital sensor errors) as are simple burning and dodging,as long as they do not alter the image to such a degree that they change feeling, mood or alter reality in a significant way. That was why there was such a fuss when either Time or Newsweek (I forget which) altered O.J. Simpson's cover shot to make the photo look sinister. As these ethical standards are, at least to small degree, subjective, there are grey areas with which photographers must deal with on a daily basis. However, absolutely no altering of image content through cutting/pasting, cloning, filtering, etc is allowed. That didn't seem to happen in this case, though.

As for the  topic in question, there is near complete support in photojournalism circles that the photog crossed the line both in general photojournalist ethics and the clearly defined contest rules.  Remember, this is NOT a pretty picture contest.

Lastly, the claims that these same results could have obtained in a darkroom is ludicrous. Simply not possible. Period.

Regards,
Chuck
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Kam on April 19, 2009, 02:45:25 pm
Quote from: ckimmerle
That was why there was such a fuss when either Time or Newsweek (I forget which) altered O.J. Simpson's cover shot to make the photo look sinister.
Regards,
Chuck

Hey Chuck, thanks for reminding me of that! I looked it up: Newsweek ran the mugshot unaltered and Time ran it adjusted.

I'd like to see some of your PJ work, but I couldn't find it on your site. Could you post a link?
You raised some great points, especially on the ethics!

Cheers,

Kamil Bialous
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Nick Rains on April 19, 2009, 06:05:46 pm
Quote from: ckimmerle
As for post-capture processing or darkroom work, of course white balance and exposure corrections are allowed (to correct for film/digital sensor errors) as are simple burning and dodging,as long as they do not alter the image to such a degree that they change feeling, mood or alter reality in a significant way.

Lastly, the claims that these same results could have obtained in a darkroom is ludicrous. Simply not possible. Period.

Regards,
Chuck

I don't entirely disagree with you but, to play devil's advocate for a moment....

In what way does B+W "not alter the image to such a degree that they change feeling, mood or alter reality in a significant way"? If it's OK to remove all the colour from a scene, why is is not OK to add it?

Also, almost anything is possible in the wet darkroom, it's just that some things are a lot harder. I see nothing in these images that could not be done with film and in a wet darkroom given sufficient time, skill and effort. I include shooting, film processing and printing techniques here.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 19, 2009, 06:25:22 pm
A. You could DEFINITELY do this in the darkroom.

B. I don't think the flip side to the judges position is by definition born of misunderstanding or inexperience.

C. I've seen PLENTY of super-high-contrast and ethereal PJ - but as others have pointed out, mainly B&W.  Why is that ok?

It ain't so cut and dry ...

EDIT ...  because I didn't know "B" + ")" = Emoticon ... funny ...
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: ckimmerle on April 19, 2009, 07:03:39 pm
Regarding darkroom work.....I still stand by my position that the toning in question was well beyond color darkroom capabilities. But, that's sorta moot, I guess. Just looking to get in the last word

As for why b/w is a credible medium for photojournalism, that's fairly straightforward: When photography first began to be used as a journalistic tool, all that was available was black and white. It was that way for decades and is still used almost exclusively on inside pages of newspapers. It's an understood and accepted form of communication with which the the general public is fully aware.

The harder question is whether or not those color images would have been disallowed had they been in b/w. For reasons I cannot fully explain, b/w images have been given much more latitude than color images regarding standard darkroom manipulations (contrast, exposure, etc). I am guessing that much of it lies in the fact that b/w photography is a more interpretive pursuit than is color photography. As most scenes are not in b/w, it's up to the photographer to interpret the tonal relationships in way that he/she sees as accurate. Unfortunately, that often leads to overly dramatic photos for the simple sake of....well, drama.

That said, the ethics for b/w are the same as the ethics for color. However, I think it's fair to say that b/w is given much more leeway. Again, it's been around far longer than color photography and, much like a grumpy old man, is allowed a bit of leeway when misbehaving. I'm not saying I agree with this "leeway", mind you, just that I understand it.

Lastly, responding to Kamil, I left photojournalism a few years ago and, as it's a past iteration of my photography, don't have anything posted. Sorry. But you can rest assured that I was great....or at least somewhat adequate  

Regards,
Chuck
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 19, 2009, 07:45:59 pm
So ... these are 'acceptable' as photojournalism, but the contest entries are not?  

http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/M...E/PAR293775.jpg (http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/S/K/Z/E/PAR293775.jpg)

http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/M...M/PAR280559.jpg (http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/S/K/F/M/PAR280559.jpg)

If the photo-journalistic community is in agreement - that it makes sense to define PJ in such a way that the contest entries are not even photojournalism whereas these images are - it should do some soul-searching ...


Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Nick Rains on April 19, 2009, 07:54:00 pm
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
So ... these are 'acceptable' as photojournalism, but the contest entries are not?  

http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/M...E/PAR293775.jpg (http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/S/K/Z/E/PAR293775.jpg)

http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/M...M/PAR280559.jpg (http://www.magnumphotos.com/CorexDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/S/K/F/M/PAR280559.jpg)

If the photo-journalistic community is in agreement - that it makes sense to define PJ in such a way that the contest entries are not even photojournalism whereas these images are - it should do some soul-searching ...

It's true that B+W gets more latitude, as Jeremy's examples show. If these were in colour....
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: ckimmerle on April 19, 2009, 09:33:17 pm
Jeremy,

The flaw in you logic is that Magnum is a photo agency, not a news organization. As such, they're not bound by the same ethical considerations.

Chuck
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 19, 2009, 09:54:25 pm
Quote from: ckimmerle
Jeremy,

The flaw in you logic is that Magnum is a photo agency, not a news organization. As such, they're not bound by the same ethical considerations.

Chuck

The photographer:

"Paolo Pellegrin was born in 1964 in Rome. He became a Magnum Photos nominee in 2001 and a full member in 2005. He is a contract photographer for Newsweek magazine. Pellegrin is winner of many awards, including eight World Press Photo and numerous Photographer of the Year Awards, a Leica Medal of Excellence, an Olivier Rebbot Award, the Hansel-Meith Preis, and the Robert Capa Gold Medal Award."

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai...ory-780876.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/paolo-pellegrin-witness-to-history-780876.html)



Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Nick Rains on April 19, 2009, 10:00:49 pm
Quote from: ckimmerle
Jeremy,

The flaw in you logic is that Magnum is a photo agency, not a news organization. As such, they're not bound by the same ethical considerations.

Chuck


There is no flaw in anyone's logic - it's just that there is a huge grey area (ha ha) in the "truths" of photography. Photojournalism is expected to at least try to keep it real, but in the final analysis it's an unachievable goal.

I see the images at the beginning of this thread as no worse than heavily worked, yet somehow acceptable, B+W images. But that's just me.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: bill t. on April 19, 2009, 11:53:00 pm
If somebody had taken that shot in 1966 with Tri-X then developed it to ISO3200 with Acufine, the contrast would have been similarly accentuated.  Lots of Pullitzer winning photos emerged that way.  Was that more pure than PS'ing?

I think the photograph is completely valid.  A journalistic photographer has to convey issues way beyond the literal photograph, using only the photograph.  The smell, flies, insects, misery, and overall ambiance are to my mind well represented by the Photoshopped image.  It is valid to exaggerate photographs as a visual surrogate to convey the impact of non-visual aspects of the experience of a scene.

But photo contests?  Just say NO.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Justan on April 20, 2009, 12:54:28 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
I asked: "Should people NOT be allowed to white balance and correct the exposure?"

Response:  "That is the question. I would say it depends on the stated rules of the competition."

To hold a competition where the majority of people will shoot digital RAW and then make the most sensible and medium-appropriate workflow illegal is just luddite.

Agreed. It is a proverbial 3 legged race. When I was going to school there were countless tests that expressly required not making the best use (or any use) of the tools of the trade. The pursuit in many of those tests was stated to demonstrate a specific range of techniques.


Bill and others have it right: step away from this kind of competition unless you're willing to accept the restrictions. In the end organizers groups will not hold this kind of competition if they can’t get skilled people to take the bait.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: sesshin on April 20, 2009, 10:21:57 pm
Really, should your raw file differ THAT much from your final file? I don't know about anyone else but I can accomplish 80-90% of what I want out of a photo in my raw conversion. If I have to resort to any heavy Photoshopping it crosses over from "sweetening" the image to more of a creative interpretation. Thats not a bad thing but it should be recognized for what it is.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: Jeremy Payne on April 20, 2009, 11:17:12 pm
Quote from: sesshin
Really, should your raw file differ THAT much from your final file?

A RAW file is not an image file.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: HickersonJasonC on April 21, 2009, 01:26:37 am
The aerial shot does not, to me, look overly manipulated. It is standard practice in journalism to normalize exposure and adjust contrast in this way to get a punchy image. While I would never choose to increase saturation this much in a photo, I don't see how it is any more or less deceptive a result as a conversion to B&W.

However, the other two just LOOK heavily manipulated, almost to the point of HDR. I can't imaging any credible newspaper or news journal printing these images with a story without a byline proclaiming them "photo illustrations" or "artistic renderings." They go beyond altering the mood of the original scene (which the aerial shot also does) and actually become what I would call "digital art," which as yet, has no place in hard journalism.

I have often thought if the day will come when Adobe or some other software giant releases a journalism standard editing software hobbled to produce only "ethically sound" images. . . The original Lightroom was fairly close to this.

On the other hand, perhaps the easiest and most dangerous form of editing a photo for journalism is never mentioned... the crop tool. Perhaps we should require all pj's to print a full frame taken with a 35mm lens set to f/8 while standing way back to capture "it all."  
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: sesshin on April 21, 2009, 02:43:06 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
A RAW file is not an image file.

Yes I understand that but what are the judges looking at when they are comparing the raw file to the finished file? Are they opening the cr2 or the dng in the raw converter and then resetting all the levels to 0? or are they simply looking at the raw file in the raw converter as it is?

For instance if you compare a raw file to a film negative and the flattened jpg or tif submitted to a print then the adjustments made during raw conversion would be similar to dodging and burning in the darkroom. Once you start doing heavy duty pixel editing on the raster image in Photoshop then that would be akin to physically manipulating a print , and in that light its obvious why the judges would reject it.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: sesshin on April 21, 2009, 03:01:22 am
Okay never mind I see now that they judge the raw based on default settings, which would basically discount all dodging, burning, color compensation, etc.
Title: Too much Photoshop? Judge for yourself.
Post by: ckimmerle on April 21, 2009, 09:38:17 am
Quote from: sesshin
Okay never mind I see now that they judge the raw based on default settings, which would basically discount all dodging, burning, color compensation, etc.

RAW files are used in photojournalism contests not to discount all burning and dodging, but rather to ascertain the extent to which any forms of localized manipulation, or excessive global enhancements (color, contrast, etc), have occurred. The judges do not compare the two files as equals, but rather use the RAW file as a basis to determine validity of the image in question.