Original
Altered
Original
Altered
And the last one:
Altered
Why wouldn't you want to use the altered photos IF they are more accurate to what the animal looks like?
Nick
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
- - ks's the green tree Python Forum - chondro forum - moreliapythons.com - ssnakess.com - chondroweb.nl - constrictors.unlimited gtp forum - - - MVF Chatroom
|
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Nick Metherd |
Photoshop vs. Just Natural light pictures |
Lead | |
|
What's everyone's opinion on the topic? I know natural lighting is always preferred but what if the picture still
doesn't come out right? I have been taking photos that were posted on the forum whether taken indoors or outside and using Photoshop to adjust the levels.
When I send the pictures back to the breeder or owner, the usual response that I get is that they are so afraid to get a label that their animals are only nice
because of photoshop that they would rather use a photo THAT IS LESS ACCURATE than the adjusted level photo. I emailed JB about some photos and he said he
didn't mind if I use the below photos as examples. I'm not saying don't disclose that the images were altered but at least use them if they are
more accurate.
Original
Altered
Original
Altered
And the last one:
Altered
Why wouldn't you want to use the altered photos IF they are more accurate to what the animal looks like? Nick |
|||
milmoejoe |
|||
|
Hey Nick,
Your question sounds like "how much photoshop". This looks like a flash pic vs. natural light. The photoshop ethics question will never have a real answer. Photographers debate it always, and there are now even organizations who referee it. Whats best is to edit to how you originally saw it, and disclose it from the beginning. If theres any question, offer the original RAW picture too just for reference. Some also use something like pothos for a reference point in the pic. Tiny little changes in lighting can make a picture look totally different, as im sure you know. And yes, I think those pics are fine. Those who cheat usually 1. suck at photoshop and 2. try to hide it. Plus the photo info is easy to pull up nowadays to check for yourself. |
|||
Jeff Godbold |
|||
|
I think those photos aren't really altered; just tweaked and brightened up a bit. This is only my opinion so take it for what its worth...my opinion, but
my feelings on this are simple. I feel like a photo will help the animal in its portrayal and can enhance the animal in a few ways: color, reality, and let
people get a feel for the temperament of the animal depending on pose. My opinion is that there's nothing wrong with touching up your pics. It can be so
hard (and I'm sure several people on here agree) to realistically capture the colors of your animals. I feel like I'm not doing the animal and it's
potential buyers/viewers justice if I don't try to make the colors really pop. If it does in person, why not try to mimic that on film?
I think the problem is when people take an animal and "completely" alter it. For example, taking a female and changing the color of it to look hormonally blue. For all of you Carpet Jag finatics, I think this happened with a Jaguar Carpet a few years back from as European breeder. The animal was completely altered to look yellow and patterneless. Not possitive so some of you could elaborate on this point if you know the story better). Just be honest. In all actuallity, I know a few professional photographers and all of them use photo enhancment. It's a refinement process, not a scam. They're just perfecting something they're passionate about. Which is what I shoot for when taking pics of an animal...and there's defanantly a learing curve; one I've yet to master. I actually love natural light and enhanced photos but sometimes the no altering idea just decreases the animal's intense color. One question: Are you comparing this to outside pics as well?
Last Edited By: Jeff Godbold
06/26/08 03:38:11.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
aaron florian |
|||
|
I photoshop every last one of my photos.
I intentionally shoot a bit dark. In my experience, it's much better to shoot dark, and digitally correct the photo.. As you can easily see in the photos above. If you shoot toward black, more of the image color integrity will remain as opposed to shooting white, where you will lose pixels to white. Once they get to a certain point, those pixels are lost. Especially with high light shots (outside typically)... take a photo of a building with clouds behind it on a sunny day, and try to get the exposure perfect for both the building and the clouds. Incredibly difficult. Ditto bright light shots and white scales. It's best to come as close as you can with your original, but when erring on the side of a good photo, err darker. Thats more easily fixed. Every one of my images goes into photoshop, gets a crop for framing, a brightness/contrast/intensity filter (where I usually up the brightness and contrast, levels vary based upon the photo), a resize, and a sharpen filter when sampled down from 3400 wide to 800. That yields me a nice, clean, crisp picture which is much more like what I saw, versus a picture that looks like crap because of my inadequacies as a photographer. Nick, I see nothing wrong with representing the best photo that you can of an animal. It's not like we're producing these for Getty Images or some stock photo library. So, I guess I'm a cheater. And hope that more people continue to cheat to get great pictures of their animals to show their friends . |
|||
pharmabull |
|||
|
For those who aren't very skilled at shooting, sharpen pics may work fine. If you don't really alter the photo it looks more "real", or at
least the pic shows the reality.
|
|||
chondrome |
Do it to it! | ||
|
I Agree with Aaron. I filter through my pics and tweak the ones I feel don't look quite right, which are most. I always keep a copy of the original though.
I don't have photoshop but the software that came with the camera. First I crop, especially if your getting prints made. Then I adjust the brightness,
contrast, and saturation. Sometimes the hue for flesh tones when people are involved. If I'm lazy I'll use the autofix button but usually not happy
with the results. I think the trick is to not over tweak. I usually keep my tweaks down to very low percentages unless I really bungled the pic. If you over
tweak the pic starts looking fake.
Photos is a form of art and people don't have to look and like, But you want them too! Larry |
|||
Marcial |
|||
|
I post pics that are as close to an actual representation of the animal as possible... sometimes I use photoshop, sometimes I don't. It depends on the
lighting that was used and how it made the animal look. I don't think it is necessary to "disclose" that you photoshopped a pic.... it is either
an accurate representation or it isn't. I have sold a ton of animals using "undisclosed photoshopped" pics, and have never had an unhappy buyer
because the animal did not look as good in person.
Posting an inferior, non-representative pic just so you can say that it is "unaltered" is not a very smart move, IMO.
Marcial Mendez
marcialmendez@hotmail.com www.chondrolicious.com www.chondrocoalition.com |
|||
Amedachan |
|||
|
Agreed with everyone here - many, many digital photographers use some degree of post-processing to get their photos as close to reality as possible, and
there's nothing wrong with that when you're going for accuracy. I think what was stated earlier, "The cheaters will be easy to spot because it
will look fake" is spot-on. It takes considerable time and skill to *convincingly* fake something in Photoshop (whether that's color, setting of the
photo, etc) and most scammers either don't have the time or the necessary know-how.
I think the photos posted by the OP are just fine - they don't distort the animal at all, in fact in looking at them, I'm sure the adjusted ones are more like what you'd see in person. No reason to worry, I think they're very acceptable edits. |
|||
Morelia Viridis |
|||
|
When using the particular monitor which I'm in front of right now this original image looks really close to how Bodhi looks. The blue on Mr. Blue probably
looks pretty good too, but I've never seen him in person. The white scale on Mr. Blue looks dead on. The background enclosure plastic looks about perfect
too.
The altered image is too purple and green. |
|||
MegF42 |
|||
|
I almost always photograph outside so altering as far as light and dark is rarely done. I usually post the photos that came out closest to what the animal
looks like in person and that shows off the colors they have to the best advantage. If I shoot indoors with a flash, I usually put a bit of white paper in
front of the flash to diffuse the brightness. Then I lighten the photo up a bit to bring it to a better visual level. Otherwise, I don't usually alter
color.
5.5~Cornsnakes
3.4.1~Green Tree Pythons 2.1.2~Amazon tree boas 1.0~California Kingsnake Assorted: Horses, dogs, and cats www.Franclycac.com |
|||
Nick Metherd |
|||
|
So it seems as though this was more of a perceived opinion than actual reality. I feel that the only true, unaltered photos are with real film, which can be
absolutely amazing (the highland closeup photo that was on the Barker's website is why I started with chondros and am still trying to find that photo). All
digital cameras have programs that adjust the white balance as well as all color aspects. If this is the case, I felt that it was hypocritical to say that
photoshop or another photo altering software should not be used.
The process I generally use is to take macro mode shots with a rebel XTi in indirect afternoon light. I generally accomplish this using my covered balcony around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. I feel that shooting evening shots outside messes with the blue levels in a shot as the sun reflects off the blue sky down on the animal creating a similar effect to shooting under blue lights or lights that spike in the blues. I then take these photos, crop them to the shot that I want, and go to adjustments and levels. Here I go under each of red, green, and blue to adjust the levels so that the end arrows are at either end of the graph readout. That may not make sense unless you are familiar with photoshop. As everyone has said, the goal is to make the photo accurate and that's it. Morelia Viridis- I've never seen either animal so I was just going off what JB said. In that case though, I would not use the photo. So since we are among friends here, really it comes down to a trust type factor. There's no problem with using a photo editing software as long as that's disclosed and the photo is accurate? The reason I originally posted this was because I have seen countless posts starting out with "this animal's colors are so hard to photograph," and I always thought "then use software to fix it!?!" I kept running into others that perceived the same as I that edited photos were looked at with more of a negative opinion than bad, original shots. And really, if someone has the photo from the Barker's I would love if you could post it or email it to me. It was a close up showing the head and coil with blues, greens, orange, and yellows. Nick |
|||
aaron florian |
undoctored photo | ||
|
This is the raw photo of my red albino with a little bit of blue coming in....
|
|||
Blue Ridge Biological |
|||
Nick Metherd wrote: Even film based images can be off from reality. Fuji Velvia is the most widely used slide film amongst macro photographers. I used it exclusively before switching to digital. I was sold on this film by a frequent contributor to National Geographic I used to work with. Velvia is known for its overly saturated colors. It's a bit off from reality, but it makes images "pop". If that chondro image on the Barker's website was shot on slide film then it was more than likely shot on Fuji Velvia, which would explain the intense colors. As far as Photoshop goes, so long as the image represents the true colors of the subject it is considered fair use in the world of professional photography. The original RAW image file is often requested from a publisher to verify the amount of any Photoshop adjustment. Where Photoshop adjustment can be a problem is when posting photos on the web. The settings on most monitors are often not the same as the settings on the monitors others may be using. What looks true to life on one person's monitor may look artificial on another. Will
|
|||
aaron florian |
|||
Where Photoshop adjustment can be a problem is when posting photos on the web. The settings on most monitors are often not the same as the settings on the monitors others may be using. What looks true to life on one person's monitor may look artificial on another.Couldn't agree more. I think the difference between photoshop touchups on a good original, and the differences between monitors all over the net, .. the monitor variance wins hands down. I have three monitors on my desk: A Dell 30" widescreen, and two 20" Dells. The two 20" dells are the same model. Photos look different on all three. |
|||
Rico Walder |
|||
|
Photoshop, especially when Arron does it, is bad for everyone!
JB is a wonderful person and his no-photoshop stance is admirable and a bet sexy, I confess. |
|||