[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Got a question here. And this *is not* meant to be critical of any image. I just want to see how people feel about post processing. When looking for something like "colors that pop," an image can be manipulated in PS to do just that. But at what point does it cease to be a photo contest and start to be a Photoshop contest?

I know this an old discussion, but in some of the more recent contests that have more to do with color/contrast/lighting, etc, Photoshop skills have played a role. The was not as much the case on earlier contests which revolved around themes or content.

These days virtually all images are processed to a certain extent, even in the camera itself with white balance corrections and such. But when, if ever, is there "too much" post processing?

i think upping saturation or fixing white balance is fine. Just because you OVERsaturate your pics, doesn't mean the colors will pop as well as others. There are certain artistic principles about colors and color combos that make some stick out more than others and whoever can capture that the best will most likely win.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

i think upping saturation or fixing white balance is fine. Just because you OVERsaturate your pics, doesn't mean the colors will pop as well as others. There are certain artistic principles about colors and color combos that make some stick out more than others and whoever can capture that the best will most likely win.

What about techniques like HDR? And again, I'm not being negative. I like HDR images and I've seen some beauties on this forum. But HDR by definition is pretty extensive post processing, even if the software is doing most of the work. I've also seen spectacular images where the majority of the scene is grayscale and the subject (like a car) is bright red. Makes for an awesome picture. And I agree that even such techniques as these still require artistic skill to make them look right. But do we cross a line at some point?

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by M_Six

What about techniques like HDR? And again, I'm not being negative. I like HDR images and I've seen some beauties on this forum. But HDR by definition is pretty extensive post processing, even if the software is doing most of the work. I've also seen spectacular images where the majority of the scene is grayscale and the subject (like a car) is bright red. Makes for an awesome picture. And I agree that even such techniques as these still require artistic skill to make them look right. But do we cross a line at some point?

mehhhh... I mean HDR's are usually way over done anyway and don't look good.

As for the greyscale and color combo... that would be up to the OP whether or not he will allow a combination or wants just color.

I think this contest is a bit more post processing involved than the others have been because of the theme so... lets just see how it goes. Obviously if people have a problem with a pic someone posts we'll all hear about it and can come to a decision with the OP to allow it or not.

[M_Six]

Here's what I mean. This is my original image corrected only for white balance.



This is the same image that I briefly played around with in PS CS4. Note how the corn is brighter yellow, the bluejays are bluer, the cardinals are redder, the leaves in the background stand out more, and even the squirrel has a nicer blend of coloring.



I guess photographers have always manipulated images in the darkroom with dodging and burning and so on. I never worked with color film in a darkroom, but I'd imagine you could manipulate the colors there as well, so maybe the only thing that's changed is where you "develop" your images, eh?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Got a question here. And this *is not* meant to be critical of any image. I just want to see how people feel about post processing. When looking for something like "colors that pop," an image can be manipulated in PS to do just that. But at what point does it cease to be a photo contest and start to be a Photoshop contest?

I know this an old discussion, but in some of the more recent contests that have more to do with color/contrast/lighting, etc, Photoshop skills have played a role. The was not as much the case on earlier contests which revolved around themes or content.

These days virtually all images are processed to a certain extent, even in the camera itself with white balance corrections and such. But when, if ever, is there "too much" post processing?

The official Rules seem to preclude adding or removing elements more than processing. They actually say that we're not to add or remove "parts of the image". That could range from removing trash sitting on the pavement in an otherwise nice image, to adding a car in front of the Taj, or simply cropping a little for compositional clarity or impact. Just like adjusting saturation and contrast, I crop many (most?) of my images. Given that you don't even need PS to crop, I'm surprised minor cropping would not be allowed here.

As for extreme saturation, balance or contrast manipulation, it's hard to say where to stop. The Ford GT image is very nice, but it's clearly gone beyond a touch of added saturation. That doesn't really bother me personally and I welcome it to the contest. The poster even mentioned that he'd take it down (thanks for that), but I think that it should be left in. Had he pushed the sliders another 20 or 30 points, it'd start looking "unreal", even to the untrained eye, a maybe should be excluded, but I'm happy to leave it there and let the voters decide if it's within the spirit of the contest. (I think it is).

In my own hot air balloon image, I set the camera in "Scenic" mode and pushed saturation a little in post processing, but my goal was trying to match what my eye saw in the relatively flat light, that didn't come across in the RAW unadjusted image. I see my choices as no different from using Fuji Velvia rather than Ectachrome 200 for the same shot. Digital is more neutral than most film, so many of our "manipulations" have less impact than making a film choice.

There may be a HDR image here, but I'm not sure. That doesn't bother me either, because the sliders weren't pushed too far and it looks close to realistic. I've seen some HDR images that are totally unreal as "accurate" photos. I don't think those belong in this particular contest, but I also think that excluding HDR all together would be wrong, particularly when used mainly to bring out shadow detail to something closer to what the eye sees; however, there's a point where they start becoming "art" and maybe don't belong in this particular contest.

Dave

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Here's what I mean. This is my original image corrected only for white balance.



This is the same image that I briefly played around with in PS CS4. Note how the corn is brighter yellow, the bluejays are bluer, the cardinals are redder, the leaves in the background stand out more, and even the squirrel has a nicer blend of coloring.



I guess photographers have always manipulated images in the darkroom with dodging and burning and so on. I never worked with color film in a darkroom, but I'd imagine you could manipulate the colors there as well, so maybe the only thing that's changed is where you "develop" your images, eh?

i'd lighten up on the saturation and use more vibrance instead

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

mehhhh... I mean HDR's are usually way over done anyway and don't look good.

As for the greyscale and color combo... that would be up to the OP whether or not he will allow a combination or wants just color.

I think this contest is a bit more post processing involved than the others have been because of the theme so... lets just see how it goes. Obviously if people have a problem with a pic someone posts we'll all hear about it and can come to a decision with the OP to allow it or not.

Agreed. And again, I'm not complaining about the rules here. I'm ok with whatever works. I just think it's an interesting discussion and one I've seen on several photography sites. It always ends up being a Ford/Chevy discussion with opinions about equally split.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

i'd lighten up on the saturation and use more vibrance instead

Yeah, it was just a real quick adjustment to make a point. I'll play with it more later.

[UdubBadger]

try +6 saturation and +60 vibrance

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

try +6 saturation and +60 vibrance

Yep, much nicer. Sort of a middle ground between my other two without overblowing the reds. But there is my point exactly. The image, as composed and shot by the photographer (me), is the same. It was the skill of the Photoshop user (you) that made it a better image.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Yep, much nicer. Sort of a middle ground between my other two without overblowing the reds. But there is my point exactly. The image, as composed and shot by the photographer (me), is the same. It was the skill of the Photoshop user (you) that made it a better image.

think of it this way.

Everyone is going to up the saturation and vibrance to make their pics pop so the playing field is essentially going to be leveled. Its the composition and color combination in the actual photo that is going to win the contest.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Yep, much nicer. Sort of a middle ground between my other two without overblowing the reds. But there is my point exactly. The image, as composed and shot by the photographer (me), is the same. It was the skill of the Photoshop user (you) that made it a better image.

So, when you used film, how was that different, other than a different person did the processing.

If you compare digital images to Kodachrome 25, Ectachrome 200, Fuji Velvia, Agfachrome (God forbid), Kodacolor, etc. the variances in product were as big or bigger than much of what we see here. If you did black and white you had to chose your film and use your red filters and such when taking the original image, but now we can do that in post processing. Indeed, we might take the same image and do it in neutral color, exaggerated color, B&W, sepia and blown out cartoonish versions.

Much of what we're doing now is the same as before, we're just doing it ourselves and, sometimes, at a different point in the process than in the past. Many here have never done it the old way. If we were trying to find the best image of Yosemite ever taken, would we exclude Ansel Adams because he used a red filter and dogged and burned??? He was trying to achieve what his eye saw and then, perhaps, make that even better.

Still, I understand the issue. I was looking at CSI Miami last night and struck by the oversaturation used in almost all the shots, particularly the scenics and cityscapes of Miami. They're rediculous, yet the average viewer accepts that without even realizing how manipulated it is. Would we accept that here? I'm not sure.

Dave

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

So, when you used film, how was that different, other than a different person did the processing.

If you compare digital images to Kodachrome 25, Ectachrome 200, Fuji Velvia, Agfachrome (God forbid), Kodacolor, etc. the variances in product were as big or bigger than much of what we see here. If you did black and white you had to chose your film and use your red filters and such when taking the original image, but now we can do that in post processing. Indeed, we might take the same image and do it in neutral color, exaggerated color, B&W, sepia and blown out cartoonish versions.

Much of what we're doing now is the same as before, we're just doing it ourselves and, sometimes, at a different point in the process than in the past. Many here have never done it the old way. If we were trying to find the best image of Yosemite ever taken, would we exclude Ansel Adams because he used a red filter and dogged and burned??? He was trying to achieve what his eye saw and then, perhaps, make that even better.

Still, I understand the issue. I was looking at CSI Miami last night and struck by the oversaturation used in almost all the shots, particularly the scenics and cityscapes of Miami. They're rediculous, yet the average viewer accepts that without even realizing how manipulated it is. Would we accept that here? I'm not sure.

Dave

All good points, and I agree and stated such earlier. I had missed your original response up higher and just saw it now. I totally agree with your points there, too. In my B&W film days I used various filters to attain my desired image and did the dodge-and-burn bit in the darkroom. I've always considered that part of the photographer's skill. I should consider post-processing in PS (or whatever) the same way. I just think, as you've stated, that it can be overdone and pushes photography into the realm of pop-art.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by M_Six

All good points, and I agree and stated such earlier. I had missed your original response up higher and just saw it now. I totally agree with your points there, too. In my B&W film days I used various filters to attain my desired image and did the dodge-and-burn bit in the darkroom. I've always considered that part of the photographer's skill. I should consider post-processing in PS (or whatever) the same way. I just think, as you've stated, that it can be overdone and pushes photography into the realm of pop-art.

nothing wrong with pop art

[Sniz]

more Summer than Fall

[UdubBadger]

nice one sniz

[Dr_Jones]

its like they gave you toast with butter and jam...

[UdubBadger]

hahahaha

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by Dr_Jones

its like they gave you toast with butter and jam...

remember, 800x600

[UdubBadger]

well 800x800 actually but most people don't crop as a perfect square

[danniexi]

"flavors"

[UdubBadger]

cool