Surely there is a fine line to be drawn between ‘editing’ and composition including choosing the right aperture and shutter speed?
Editing or cheating?
- Thread starter Steve Arnold
- Start date
Keith M
Well-known member
One of the latest shots I took while staying at a golf hotel resort in the north of Dartmoor; and was taken with an inexpensive compact camera and it was directly facing into the sun which was behind some clouds. Technically it wasn’t very good and was taken in a very low resolution and if anything it was a bit blurred; however I liked the metallic tone of the shot, and I thought the light conveyed the subject well.
It was taken on a late September morning with an inexpensive compact camera just before a storm arrived and showed the calm just before a storm arrived, and there was no filters or any other things done to the image; it was just point and take.
I used the shot as a background on my PC screen for a while.
Keith
It was taken on a late September morning with an inexpensive compact camera just before a storm arrived and showed the calm just before a storm arrived, and there was no filters or any other things done to the image; it was just point and take.
I used the shot as a background on my PC screen for a while.
Keith
Last edited:
@Clive
Well-known member
Yes, I agree. But where do you draw that line. Is it editing to select a longer shutter speed to enhance flowing water?
To turn up the colour saturation?
Or lay on the floor to achieve leading lines?
Here I slipped a thin sheet of red perspex in front of the lens on an Olympus XA pocket camera to darken the sky and make the clouds stand out.
There are thousands of ways to manipulate an image.
Steve Arnold
Well-known member
"There are thousands of ways to manipulate an image"
....and so many are now built into the phone camera software. I still don't get how a "bent" panorama shot can be made to look remotely natural!
Even though I know the nearside bank in this shot is in fact almost straight I think the overall shot conveys an accurate view of this scene.....
and for this town view I felt the phone camera did an outstanding job....
I know that the low wall is in fact almost straight, but how else to convey such a wide scene? Otherwise I am in total awe of modern digital photography, even if I dislike "cheating" on the fundamentals of a good shot!
....and so many are now built into the phone camera software. I still don't get how a "bent" panorama shot can be made to look remotely natural!
Even though I know the nearside bank in this shot is in fact almost straight I think the overall shot conveys an accurate view of this scene.....
and for this town view I felt the phone camera did an outstanding job....
I know that the low wall is in fact almost straight, but how else to convey such a wide scene? Otherwise I am in total awe of modern digital photography, even if I dislike "cheating" on the fundamentals of a good shot!
@Clive
Well-known member
The 'Fish Eye' effect brings everything together. If you straightened the walls the buildings behind them would be spaced out more leaving big gaps between them. If you look at images taken by the old clockwork panoramic film cameras you can see the difference. They had to be mounted dead level on a tripod and the whole camera turned through 360 degrees in the horizontal plane.
Strictly speaking a conventional camera can never replicate what the numan eye sees. The golden sunset images are caused by the camera's exposure system reacting differently to the human eye. Also a camera has one lense so the image is two dimensional, we have two eyes and have a three dimensional view. With modern technology cameras will soon have stereo lenses that overcome the issues stereo film cameras had. Then take into account CGI & AI programs that will find their way into the amateur market and anything will be possible to be created digitally. Even big cats in Gloucestershire!
Strictly speaking a conventional camera can never replicate what the numan eye sees. The golden sunset images are caused by the camera's exposure system reacting differently to the human eye. Also a camera has one lense so the image is two dimensional, we have two eyes and have a three dimensional view. With modern technology cameras will soon have stereo lenses that overcome the issues stereo film cameras had. Then take into account CGI & AI programs that will find their way into the amateur market and anything will be possible to be created digitally. Even big cats in Gloucestershire!
steve2
Well-known member
How many published fish capture pics are now true, it is now so easy to pose with a fish you have not caught. It was done in the past and they were easy to spot now it is not so clear.
People will do anything to boost their ego.
People will do anything to boost their ego.
I am not a fan of photo being manipulated and by that I mean changed on a PC from what was taken by the camera, it just ruins it for me. I can be shown a really nice image and think wow what a great photo then as soon as I hear its been photoshopped or whatever I just lose interest.
There are some exceptions one would be to take something out of image that while it does not impact the photo ruins the whole thing ..e.g extreme example ..Perfect family photo spoilt by a dog poo on the ground next to them…that sort of thing.
Also for some of the reasons mention above for example as Steve says to convey a scene, where its pretty obvious its been manipulated but its understandable why.
I guess the line would be if your intentionally trying to mislead people when you edit it.
From an angling context I don’t think capture photos should be messed with, for example mend a split fin or replace lost scales on a fish and that sort of thing. If you do that then enter it for catch of the month or whatever I don’t think that’s on.
I stress this is my own outlook on it…if someone wants to photoshop their own fish photos to death good luck to them. …why even bother with a camera, just create the whole thing on a computer …instant whoppers..you don’t even need to go fishing
There are some exceptions one would be to take something out of image that while it does not impact the photo ruins the whole thing ..e.g extreme example ..Perfect family photo spoilt by a dog poo on the ground next to them…that sort of thing.
Also for some of the reasons mention above for example as Steve says to convey a scene, where its pretty obvious its been manipulated but its understandable why.
I guess the line would be if your intentionally trying to mislead people when you edit it.
From an angling context I don’t think capture photos should be messed with, for example mend a split fin or replace lost scales on a fish and that sort of thing. If you do that then enter it for catch of the month or whatever I don’t think that’s on.
I stress this is my own outlook on it…if someone wants to photoshop their own fish photos to death good luck to them. …why even bother with a camera, just create the whole thing on a computer …instant whoppers..you don’t even need to go fishing
@Clive
Well-known member
I agree Philip. As regards fishing, let's keep it natural.
Steve Arnold
Well-known member
A "selfie" with a drone, Clive?
@Clive
Well-known member
No, I used a trained budgie.
BTW; I recognise that 'haven't you done messing yet?' stance Sally has adopted in your second photo. It was an all too common sight when I used to be seriously into photography.
Keith M
Well-known member
I think that it really depends on whether you are creating a picture just for displaying or you are trying to deceive someone.
For example; a black and white picture of a snow scene can be made great when you are giving it an iron blue tone; likewise an Autumn shot can be made exceptional with it a nice reddish brown autumn tone.
Also; if the shot was a landscape being spoilt by a plain blank white sky I don’t think there’s anything wrong with burning in a nice cloud effect during the printing process.
However; a shot of a fish that’s been taken as a record of its capture; or any other picture taken to record an event; shouldn’t be doctored as it is plainly a distorted and misleading photo and done to deceive others.
‘Removing’ something like a dog poo or ‘removing’ something else in the background which would give the location away could sometimes be forgiven e.g. when publishing the fishery location is strictly against your club rules and there’s something in the background that would obviously give the location away.
Keith
For example; a black and white picture of a snow scene can be made great when you are giving it an iron blue tone; likewise an Autumn shot can be made exceptional with it a nice reddish brown autumn tone.
Also; if the shot was a landscape being spoilt by a plain blank white sky I don’t think there’s anything wrong with burning in a nice cloud effect during the printing process.
However; a shot of a fish that’s been taken as a record of its capture; or any other picture taken to record an event; shouldn’t be doctored as it is plainly a distorted and misleading photo and done to deceive others.
‘Removing’ something like a dog poo or ‘removing’ something else in the background which would give the location away could sometimes be forgiven e.g. when publishing the fishery location is strictly against your club rules and there’s something in the background that would obviously give the location away.
Keith
Last edited:
@Clive
Well-known member
A famous example of an image being manipulated for dubious reasons is the iconic photo of Russian soldiers raising their flag over the Reichstag. It was doctored by the lab technician to 'remove' watches that would have resulted in the soldiers being accused of looting. The original negative shows the watches whereas the prints supplied to the press didn't. They also made the printed image more dramatic by adding more smoke.
@Clive
Well-known member
Behave! You are on a Rockies roadLike a power station or a pile of Kayaks maybe
mikench
Well-known member
These photos are stunning but can we believe what we see? I’m dubious about the murmuration of starlings photo.
Wildlife Photographer of the Year People's Choice Award winner
A stunning image of a young polar bear drifting to sleep wins a wildlife-photographer competition
www.bbc.co.uk
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
It does look too good to be true. A few years ago a guy took a photo of some green parakeets in a local cemetery the guy used flash and normal opening in the same shot. The birds don’t really look natural but it’s a genuine photograph and gives an illusion of speed.
@Clive
Well-known member
Its a fake imo Ray. With a light source such as a flashgun, if you double the distance the illumination is a quarter. Those distant birds would be much darker than the nearest ones.
When you see people using the flash on their compact cameras or camera phones in theatres, stadiums and the like the effective range of their flash will be no more than five or six yards, yet by selecting the flash mode they could be causing the camera to under expose in the abient light.
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
The guy who took the photo is an award winning urban wildlife photographer. The photo won some awards back when it was taken in 2016. The parakeets roost in the cemetery and they must be one of the largest flocks of parakeets in the country.
I remember it because it was taken a short distance from where I used to work. I believe the guy used multiple flash guns and second curtain sync. When I first saw the photograph my immediate reaction was that it was fake. Then I read how it was done in a camera magazine. It may have been AP. It was so long ago that I can’t remember for sure which one. It wasn’t the result of a happy accident, the guy set out to get that shot and effect.
I remember it because it was taken a short distance from where I used to work. I believe the guy used multiple flash guns and second curtain sync. When I first saw the photograph my immediate reaction was that it was fake. Then I read how it was done in a camera magazine. It may have been AP. It was so long ago that I can’t remember for sure which one. It wasn’t the result of a happy accident, the guy set out to get that shot and effect.
@Clive
Well-known member
I understand the first and second curtain flash techniques and have used it myself to freeze action with a blurred image. It is possible to do with an Olympus XA pocket film camera.
Regards the multiple flash usage, I am not convinced that it could be set up to give even lighting from above and below the flock, some of which look to be over ten yards away and others a couple of feet. I am dubious about that. I would love to see how it was done though.
I won a few AP photo competitions and had a couple of articles published back in the day when digital photography hadn't been invented. Then I sold all my film gear in 2006 after sustaining a serious eye injury. Inspired by our very own Steve Arnold's photos I started rummaging through the boxes in the basement to see if I had brought anything over here. I found an old Zeiss folding camera and some 1950-60's 35mm cameras and lenses that didn't get sold off. I bought some film and am half way through the first roll.
Regards the multiple flash usage, I am not convinced that it could be set up to give even lighting from above and below the flock, some of which look to be over ten yards away and others a couple of feet. I am dubious about that. I would love to see how it was done though.
I won a few AP photo competitions and had a couple of articles published back in the day when digital photography hadn't been invented. Then I sold all my film gear in 2006 after sustaining a serious eye injury. Inspired by our very own Steve Arnold's photos I started rummaging through the boxes in the basement to see if I had brought anything over here. I found an old Zeiss folding camera and some 1950-60's 35mm cameras and lenses that didn't get sold off. I bought some film and am half way through the first roll.
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
I had an Olympus xa. It was a nice little camera.
It must be strange going back to a film camera. When you are paying per shot it must concentrate your mind wonderfully, lol.
It must be strange going back to a film camera. When you are paying per shot it must concentrate your mind wonderfully, lol.