Photoshopping/Post Production of Pictures?

[Todd@RUPES]

When you take a picture with a digital camera, the camera itself uses sensors to convert binary code into an image. Depending on the quality of the sensor and how well the camera processes the photo (based upon predetermined settings) will ultimately result in what the camera thinks the final picture should look like.



However, there has never been such a thing as a natural, or unprocessed photo, as some people tend to think. The camera itself is doing a lot of processing, based upon the settings you have selected for it. If you change the ‘white balance’ setting on your camera, all you are doing is telling the camera to process the photo differently. The unprocessed image the camera see’s is not altered, just the resulting photograph.



If we take any care and shoot pictures with two different cameras, even from the same angles, we will end up with two different sets of pictures. Is one any less or more natural? What if we take the same camera and take photo’s with different settings, is one any more or less natural? The answer is of course not. We are manipulating the way a camera processes the image, there is nothing (ever) natural about any digital photograph.



So the argument (at least in my opinion) that photo editing/post processing a photo is wrong doesn’t seem well thought out. The camera itself is doing the processing for you (if you don’t wish to have control over it), so are we to say that messing with the perfection that Nikon, Cannon, or Sony programming comes up with is blasphemy?



For those who are against post processing I have couple questions which would help me understand your point of view.



Where do we draw the line?



Should we all use identical cameras (since a more expensive camera will do a better job of processing the photo)?



Is it okay to alter the white balance on the camera (which IS post production editing done through the camera)?



Is it okay to use the camera’s software to edit the photo but not okay to use a third party program?



I take a lot of photo’s in RAW mode (which is the image the camera see’s before it processes the photo) and may use Photoshop to process it? Am I sinning because I am using a third party program instead of the program that Nikon designed?



I have a couple friends who are pretty well know photographers and they literally laugh at the notion of that post processing is wrong or bad. With digital photography it is really where the ‘art’ is. .

[Accumulator]

IMO the "sinning" is when people manipulate the image to make it look "better" (whatever that means in the given context) than it would if the viewer were standing there looking at it in real life. (And that`s sure not just a matter of post-processing either!)



E.g., tweaking the white balance so fluorescents don`t make a white car appear green is one thing; tweaking it so the white paint appears to have incredible "depth" to show that a given LSP imparts that look is something very different.



And since it can be hard to tell what`s what over the internet, this is one more reason why I wouldn`t put much weight on internet pics.

[D Tailor]

When you take a picture with a digital camera, the camera itself uses sensors to convert binary code into an image. Depending on the quality of the sensor and how well the camera processes the photo (based upon predetermined settings) will ultimately result in what the camera thinks the final picture should look like.



However, there has never been such a thing as a natural, or unprocessed photo, as some people tend to think. The camera itself is doing a lot of processing, based upon the settings you have selected for it. If you change the ‘white balance’ setting on your camera, all you are doing is telling the camera to process the photo differently. The unprocessed image the camera see’s is not altered, just the resulting photograph.



If we take any care and shoot pictures with two different cameras, even from the same angles, we will end up with two different sets of pictures. Is one any less or more natural? What if we take the same camera and take photo’s with different settings, is one any more or less natural? The answer is of course not. We are manipulating the way a camera processes the image, there is nothing (ever) natural about any digital photograph.



So the argument (at least in my opinion) that photo editing/post processing a photo is wrong doesn’t seem well thought out. The camera itself is doing the processing for you (if you don’t wish to have control over it), so are we to say that messing with the perfection that Nikon, Cannon, or Sony programming comes up with is blasphemy?



For those who are against post processing I have couple questions which would help me understand your point of view.



Where do we draw the line?



Should we all use identical cameras (since a more expensive camera will do a better job of processing the photo)?



Is it okay to alter the white balance on the camera (which IS post production editing done through the camera)?



Is it okay to use the camera’s software to edit the photo but not okay to use a third party program?



I take a lot of photo’s in RAW mode (which is the image the camera see’s before it processes the photo) and may use Photoshop to process it? Am I sinning because I am using a third party program instead of the program that Nikon designed?



I have a couple friends who are pretty well know photographers and they literally laugh at the notion of that post processing is wrong or bad. With digital photography it is really where the ‘art’ is. .

I have been thinking about this for a long time. I don`t see the point in stressing "natural photos". Even without digital images, when you start manipulating f-stops and ISA, etc, you are "altering" the image. SO whether you are doing it through the lens or doing it through photoshop....no difference. RAW is the truest and I shoot in RAW often. IN fact when I bought the camera I use, the processing engine was 1st, lens and optical zoom 2nd, and ability to shoot RAW third.



I feel that when you start using a clone tool, start adding and removing color (for example), basically doing things to perfect imperfections in detailing work....that is being unethical and that is wrong.

[imported_rydawg]

Great post Todd! I remember you and I had talked about this many of times and there is no such thing as a camera taking what was actually seen.



A JPEG coming from a camera is using the built in software processed inside of the camera which determines contrast, saturation, sharpness, and sometimes exposure if you are in A mode. In A mode, the camera determines the exposure based on the lighting, and will vary from the metering software built in the camera. One can always adjust the settings in camera to boost the picture also.



In M mode, you can now control the exposure based on the "target" spot you are metering off of, which will sometimes result in an over-exposed backround which is quite normally seen when there is bright light in the backround.



Then we all have to remember, what we all see on our computers is not 100% actual, because we all have different monitors. Also, if your monitor is not calibrated, you are not seeing actual color. Also, RGB mode is needed to view pictures online. There are many other modes like Adobe, ProPhoto, etc, which have a wider gamut of colors, but can not be seen correctly online... So RGB mode, we only get to see certain colors.

[Scottwax]

I usually just shoot in automatic mode, but sometimes use twilight when the angle I am shooting at makes the paint look too light in automatic mode (usually dark paints at an angle at close range).



I don`t do any tweaking of the images on my computer beyond resizing and compressing. However it comes out of the camera is how it goes into the thread.

[RaskyR1]

As long as someone is not altering the RAW image to hide defects I have no issues with anyone doing any post processing on their images. I`m still a noob with my camera and an even bigger noob with PS3, but there have been several times where I have had to adjust WB, exposure, or fill light to get the photo the way it should look as I saw it in my eyes.





My last write up on this Impala was untouched because of all the negative talk I`ve seen lately about post processing. I simply re-sized and exported the RAW images in a batch file right from Picassa and I feel in no way do they represent a true image of the car and I feel some post editing could have helped them look more true.







http://www.autopia.org/forum/pro-det...ior-fluff.html





Just my $.02



Rasky

[David Fermani]

Note that I don`t know the 1st thing about altering photos. I could give 2 squirts about anyone modding their photos to make them look good. I`m all in for maxing out one`s creative artistic expression in regards to portraying their detail work. Pic up any magazine and every pic is PhotoShopped. The best threads on any detailing forum(especially this one) are the ones with high quality pics. Facts are Facts.

[imported_rydawg]

As long as someone is not altering the RAW image to hide defects I have no issues with anyone doing any post processing on their images. I`m still a noob with my camera and an even bigger noob with PS3, but there have been several times where I have had to adjust WB, exposure, or fill light to get the photo the way it should look as I saw it in my eyes.





My last write up on this Impala was untouched because of all the negative talk I`ve seen lately about post processing. I simply re-sized and exported the RAW images in a batch file right from Picassa and I feel in no way do they represent a true image of the car and I feel some post editing could have helped them look more true.











Just my $.02



Rasky

Theres nothing wrong with that. You are just making the picture look more natural and that only shows the true paint if adjusted correctly. You can`t hide defects that way.

[salty]

Probably most people frown on it because they hear or wonder if it is processed. As Accumulator said, if you are deceiving with a purpose then it is wrong.



Another thing people might think about the topic is where does it end? The pic is touched up with Photoshop, so are the scratches brushed over etc.? How much is the color enhanced?



There will never be a right or wrong answer. Just people`s opinion.

[gmblack3]

I feel that I just get lucky at times with the right amount of sunlight. Other times its overcast and the pics look horrible. Oh well in the end the client is happy and I get paid.

[Junebug]

I don`t know much about photography, I had an old Minolta Maxum back in 89 - then I got married, and the wife has been the one that`s gone through a half dozen cameras - from SLR`s to digital, so for me - point, shoot, pray, that`s how I roll!



The question about "doctored" pics - will never really be answered cause on the internet, who can be sure if it`s real or made up? I mean, is there a software that you can use on a jpeg to determine if it`s natural or photoshop`d ? I`d like to know, cause I`ve seen things (NSFW) heh heh - that you just have to wonder?!!

[Dan]

You could even argue that setting your camera in "vivid" mode is altering things, who cares. Even the time of day makes a big difference if you can see swirls or not. If it matters that much to you, go drive to the person`s house and look at the car, lol.

[Accumulator]

... If it matters that much to you, go drive to the person`s house and look at the car, lol.

Heh heh, I love that :xyxthumbs

[Leadfootluke]

I agree that pictures can be PS`d or modified however much is wanted as long as it is honest in terms of adulterating flaws that were not corrected. Even then, if you modify a defect that you never claimed to fix I could see that.



I wouldn`t necessarily hire someone to detail my vehicle based on internet pictures,but moreso their reputation and physical evidence.



And, internet browsers, like Opera, can show you information on the picture.

I clicked on one of the first images in TH0001`s thread and the information from the first picture said:

Orientation of image: 1

File change date and time: 2010:03:26 17:45:07

Image input equipment manufacturer: NIKON CORPORATION

Image input equipment model: NIKON D40X

Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows

Exposure time: 0.0166667

F number: 4

Exposure program: 0

ISO speed rating: 200

Exposure bias: 0

Maximum lens aperture: 3.6

Metering mode: 5

Light source: 0

Flash: 0

Lens focal length: 18

Sensing method: 2

Custom rendered: 0

Exposure mode: 0

White balance: 0

Digital zoom ratio: 1

Focal length in 35 mm film: 27

Scene capture type: 0

Gain control: 0

Contrast: 1

Saturation: 0

Sharpness: 0

Subject distance range: 0

But images with boarders, embossed images and logos, and adjusted ones use editting software. That doesn`t mean defects were hidden.

[TSC17]

I too agree that it is a good discussion, and that there may not be a consensus on what is acceptable and what is not.



IMO, I can see where making adjustments in a third party software program to compensate for things like white balance is perfectly acceptable. I do custom white balance adjustments in the camera for every single light source (otherwise the camera will most likely get it "wrong"). Sometimes you may forget or not have time, and if you shoot it in RAW and make the adjustments in something like PS, then that`s just fine.



I think the argument comes into play is when colors and saturations are manipulated...particularly when it`s done on after shots, but not on before shots. If somebody were to do that, then it would be a no-no in my book.



On occasion I will make mention that I haven`t done any post-processing simply because I`ve had people in the past make suggestions that my photos had been changed. I had them view the EXIF data on them just to prove that I had not.



So if somebody really understands a complex program like PS, then the results can be good because in many cases it can "fix" faults in the camera.



If somebody doesn`t understand it, and as a result saturation levels are all jacked up...or if they`re changing after shots but not before shots, then I see it as a bad thing.



My .02.