How much is too much?

[F.Gordon]

Poll question: How much is too much?

I started thinking about this after CC expressed concern over entering an Infrared shot for the Fall Contest. I didn't see anything wrong with it, but I understood her concerns.

There is a wide variety of cameras, lenses, filters, and "post processing" (digital darkroom) software used around here. Should there be an effort made to keep everyone on the same level?

I'm leaning toward a straight-foward no-frills black & white shot I took today as my entry, but I'd like the opportunity to enter stuff like this.....



So.... how much is too much? How far should the "processing" be allowed to go? Some people only take the "in-camera" shot and resize.. nothing else.

[lakemonster11]

1. I think it's okay to do anything in the "digital darkroom"

that one can do in the traditional darkroom.

If there's one thing I've taken away from my photography classes, it's that photography is just as much about post-processing as it is about actually snapping the shutter.

So, cropping, burning, dodging, toning, and contrast, brightness, and color adjustments are all perfectly fine in my opinion. Things like selective desaturation, editing out unwanted elements, making composites, and using digital "filter" treatments seem more controversial.

I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I guess I would suggest that any post-processing is fine as long as the result still looks like a photograph (so no "watercolor," "glowing edges," "ocean ripple," or "charcoal"-style effects). :shrug:

As for cameras, lenses, and (lens) filters, I don't think we should have any sort of limitations.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I say go for it...

Why should we stifle each other's creativity?

edit - although I do see your point, LakeMonster. I guess I don't know enough about the post-processing stuff to even consider all those things you said. All I ever do is mess with the color and stuff, maybe clone out a sun spot or something.

But, really, I personally am fine with whatever anybody wants to try. Just because a photo is played with a lot isn't necessarily going to make it more appealing to the Loungers than one right out of the camera.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. I think you are coming at this from a false premise

The premisethat says, "The more you edit and play with the image, the greater your chances of winning". Or the corrolary, "Because playing with my images in Photoshop increases my chances of winning, it is unfair advantage to those who don't have it".

But it's very untrue - one can ruin a picture with the photoshopping just as easily as ruin it in the camera or in the darkroom.

I think anything should be allowed, because the photoshop guys have no advantage.

Even if they want to put elements in or take some out - in the darkroom, one can also play around with adding and taking things out. Look at the movie Star Wars.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Your suggestion is correct

...Here is my intended entry for the fall contest (unchanged from the original digital image except for cropping.)



...But I almost always test the One Step Photo Fix in Paint Shop Pro just to see what it suggests before I do my own touch ups. Here is the "fixed" version.



(Bet you're hoping I am as klutzy grabbing my URL for the contest as I was when I posted my fall picture poll...)

[Blue_In_AK]

9. I have PaintShop Pro, also

and I frequently am not satisfied with the one-step photo fix. Like last evening we were high (altitude-wise) above Anchorage and I took some shots of the moon rising over the mountains. The sky was a really wonderful purple color, but when I ran it through the "photo fix," it came out a boring blue. I much prefer manually adjusting the color and contrast, etc.

[Ms. Toad]

13. Occasionally it does a really good job

then I use that as my starting point. Most of the time I just undo the fix and make my own manual adjustments.

[F.Gordon]

11. That wasn't what I was going for

"The more you edit and play with the image, the greater your chances of winning". Or the corrolary, "Because playing with my images in Photoshop increases my chances of winning, it is unfair advantage to those who don't have it".

Not.Exactly.

Even basic no-frills RAW processing software allows one to do things that most can't.... let alone all the "gimmick" type things like the snap in my OP. Although... the snap in my OP could be done completely "in-camera" with the right lens or filter and camera settings. (color temp, white balance, etc)

I'll respect that some people are uncomfortable with "extreme" processing techniques and try to avoid using them in "contest" situations. I'm still for "anything goes" because I like seeing different kinds of stuff. And I like coming up with "different" myself. Maybe we should just respect that some people don't like this and refrain from it as much as possible. Or... as it's been suggested let the Host determine what can and can not be done.

I have a few "Fall" snaps that are a little "extreme", and would like to consider one of them. But the Host said it was allowed. But I don't want to offend people who hang here. Troubling.It.Is.

Been a long day. Tired. Must sleep. Or try.....

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. But the truth still is, if the original shot isn't any good, no amount of

playing around with it is gonna make it much better.

Especially considering that we are doing these contests online, and are asking people to post with small bit-size images: consider the amount of digital and other processing that takes place just getting the image posted to DU.

Especially if one starts with film, one has processing of the negative - already, one can play with processing there. Then, printing the negative - again, lots of room for processing hijinks.

Then the scan of the print - it is impossible at this point NOT to do some playing around with the image.

Then the image needs to be made into a jpg or gif or bmp; then it needs to be resized/reduced so the bit size isn't too large.

Even if one does nothing "unusual" (whatever the hell that means), that's a lot of fucking around with the image.

I truly, really, and seriously am of the opinion that saying that doing fancy shit in photoshop is somehow "cheating" is wrong.

I especially don't understand the question around infrared. Why not? Is there is something inherent to infrared that makes it an automatic contest winner? Nah, it's just film - who cares if it's 1000 speed kmodachrome, 100 speed infrared, or 25 speed black and white?

I think to put any kind of limit is just artificial and unreal, except for the basics, such as "color only" or "black and white only" or "infrared only" or "square format only", etc.

[F.Gordon]

20. I don't see it as trying to make it "better"......

... just make it different. That's where I was coming from. And the Infrared thing? There's been no objection to it. It was just CC's concern over submitting an infrared photograph that got me thinking about all this stuff. I probably shouldn't have brought that up.

I'm in agreement with you on everything you're saying. But... there's also the issue of those "that have" and those "that have not". What does Photoshop CS cost? More than most people spend on a camera. There's also the issue of those "that know" and those "that don't know". Some here may not even be able to crop... let alone Clone, Dodge, Burn, Blur, Snort, Sniff, or Smoke.
:smoke:

I say let the Host/ess make the call, as others have said, but I also say that we should be mindful that there are those that don't think that "extreme processing" should be allowed.

[Touchdown]

4. I voted other.

No reason. I just like words that start with o, like orangutan or occidental.:P

[CC]

5. I wasn't looking to start something. lol

I just figured since it was really two pics it would be out of character for the contest or something like that. Not sure how to explain it. Bit I was basically just playing around with the photos because I wasn't happy with either one alone. I only want to be a bridesmaid, not the bride. Besides it was a good excuse to put off work around the house and go play photographer. I don't have a problem with photo-shopping and anymore everything seems to be shopped at some point. I may even go play with the Spirit Tree some more.

Love that pic Gordon. And why not enter stuff like that? Besides you started the IF bug. And it might be spreading. :rofl:

[Ms. Toad]

6. Other

I like to know if there have been major alterations that are not apparent (people/buildings/objects painted out or added, two photos seamed together, etc.), but ultimately unless I am using the photograph to make an accurate record I don't see any reason to limit the artistic endeavor solely to the techniques that can be done in camera. (If I am trying to make an accurate record, even some things that can be done in camera would be a problem.)

So...if I had to choose between the first two options, I would choose anything goes.

In this forum, I would also leave it up to the contest host - so a host who is a purist might choose not to permit any modification (even cropping). That might be an interesting exercise for those of us who love darkroom work (electronic or traditional). . .

[ConsAreLiars]

8. Anything goes, even prohibiting "extreme" techniques

I can imagine a contest restricted to one or the other, or even one where before-after pairs are rated in terms of the degree of improvement, according to the whims of the host.

I do regard it as good manners for photographers to mention any special techniques that substantially alter the photo, and would encourage people to explain how they accomplished the changes, so that we can learn a bit more about how such things work.

[RagingInMiami]

10. That's a great photo

I voted for anything goes.

[regnaD kciN]

12. Note my call for an Infared Challenge...

I get the feeling that there are at least a couple of us that are considering entering such a photo, either in a new challenge or the fall contest. Since the latter is about to begin, anyone want to make our task easier by taking on the hosting of such a challege?

[smurfygirl]

14. anything goes...it's a great learning tool

I love seeing what others can do and trying to learn from that. It's nice that we can all share how we do things. Anything goes.

[Mutley]

15. I think it should be limited.

Some people (like me :) ) have no idea how to use those software programs and they would be at a huge disadvantage (not like I'm very good at taking pictures anyway, but still).

[Blue_In_AK]

16. But, really, Mutley

just because somebody messes around with a photo program doesn't make the photo that much better. A lot still has to do with composition, form, etc. etc. etc. and all that other good artistic stuff. I have several photos that I like better right out of the camera than after they're "fixed."

[Mutley]

17. I guess I was thinking about the picture F.Gordon posted

and I thought that if someone entered that and the same picture without the blurred edges, the blurred one would likely win because it's really cool looking. Also, if someone is capable of taking a terrible looking spot out of an otherwise great picture, but others don't have that skill, then it doesn't seem fair. Just my two cents.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. I understand that...

I'm just being my usual Libra "see both sides of every issue" self. I can't help it.

[F.Gordon]

21. You should start a "hurt me beat me" thread

Take a photo that you like and start a thread where it gets sliced and diced. But... make sure that anyone who messes with your photograph explains HOW they did what they did so you understand it.

For example.. I really liked your "Playground" photo for Fall. But I would have cropped it so you had more playground and less background.

You told me once what you are using but I forgot. You might want to download this (it's free) just to get started with some of the basics.....Just click on buttons and stuff and play around with it.

http://www.irfanview.com/

[Mutley]

22. I'm using Gimp, but I think it's a little too much for the

tech challenged like myself. :D I'll give the one you posted a shot.

[NashVegas]

23. My 2 Cents

I haven't been participating so much lately, so this may as well come from the 'grain of salt' department.

At some point, a photo that's been manipulated to kingdom come stops being a photograph and becomes a more general graphic.

I think of a photograph as a document of a particular moment in time, as measured by light.

In a studio situation (and some post-processing), the photographer can be in complete control of time. It becomes more science and less art.

The question is: are we bothered by that? Personally I am; working with limitations is the fun part for me.