User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 6:48:59 PM EDT
So I'm going to making some entries in next year's Kansas photo contest, and this is one of my contenders:
 E Flush by FredMan, on FlickrThe thing is, that goddam microwave tower is in the background. It's impossible to crop out. So I threw together this copy...  E Flush by FredMan, on FlickrNow, most contest rules I've read say any editing other than "traditional darkroom methods" disqualifies a picture, so is it appropriate to submit an entry with this edit? And then the larger question; just how much photochopping is ethical (ethical in the sense of "Yes, I really did take that picture, and did not add in or take away elements")? To my way of thinking color, tone, exposure, cropping, etc are all perfectly ethical, but where do you draw the line? And yes, there is a time and a place for chopping, but I'm more concerned with "straight" photography and not social media, advertising, etc. Think journalism photography. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 6:57:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Haven’t thought of this term in ages, but I’d imagine that “dodging” would have been thought to be permissible in the “olden days”…
Now, would that extend to “retouching” (which is perhaps more closely akin to what you did)? Think of that photo of Stalin where the purged comrade was purged from the shot (and probably was literally ‘shot’ as well). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:01:16 PM EDT
[#2]
"editing other than "traditional darkroom methods" disqualifies a picture" = disqualification
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:12:13 PM EDT
[#3]
I can't imagine the second photo would disqualify you. Cropping is a traditional darkroom method.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:20:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can't imagine the second photo would disqualify you. Cropping is a traditional darkroom method. But it's not cropping. It's using the spot healing brush in PS to get rid of the tower and guy wires. Part of me says "the tower has absolutely no bearing on the subject of the picture", and part of me says "I took out an element of the original image". Hence my quandary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:23:31 PM EDT
[#5]
I would suggest to fix the horizon before you do the rest...
maybe that would bring the tower close enough to the edge and align it vertically so it is not as distracting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:24:50 PM EDT
[#6]
The author of this article (which explores the history of photo manipulation at a summary level) draws a distinction between aesthetics and ethics - my interpretation is that what you have done would fit under the ‘aesthetics’ umbrella and would not run afoul of ‘ethical’ considerations (but others may differ).
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/darkroom-photo-manipulation-photoshop-walk-history/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:28:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Crop the antenna out,
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:31:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would suggest to fix the horizon before you do the rest... maybe that would bring the tower close enough to the edge and align it vertically so it is not as distracting? My horizon level is based on my buddy, and he's "vertical" in the frame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:33:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But it's not cropping. It's using the spot healing brush in PS to get rid of the tower and guy wires. Part of me says "the tower has absolutely no bearing on the subject of the picture", and part of me says "I took out an element of the original image". Hence my quandary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I can't imagine the second photo would disqualify you. Cropping is a traditional darkroom method. But it's not cropping. It's using the spot healing brush in PS to get rid of the tower and guy wires. Part of me says "the tower has absolutely no bearing on the subject of the picture", and part of me says "I took out an element of the original image". Hence my quandary. Shit, my bad. I didn't compare the two closely and thought you had cropped it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:36:06 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:37:05 PM EDT
[#11]
it is your picture and your rules... it is just IMHO but I never based my horizon on moving objects. and one of the reasons why that tower is such an eye sore is that it is not vertical... our mind catches on it... if you don't want to remove it, I would suggest to make it vertical and see if you can keep it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 7:38:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Do it in a dark room or work on your framing next time, I would not allow this if I were judging
steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 8:06:06 PM EDT
[#13]
For art's sake, I can see doing the alteration. But unless there is a category in the contest for manipulated images, it would not qualify as "photography".
There are contests that include a manipulated category. But then you're submitting a fairly ordinary looking image compared to some of the wild things done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 9:21:24 PM EDT
[#14]
If you could dodge or burn it away, a la Adams, sure. But, as it is, no, I wouldn't enter it. That tower, right or wrong, is a significant part of the landscape.
All of photography is a lie. We keep things out of the field of view we don't want to be seen, we have colors and tone that weren't before our eyes. we have depths of field that are wholly unlike what the eye sees, we have motion blur and stop action unlike what we really see, and so on. So, yes, photography is a lie. But, from the standpoint of entering a contest, a contest where you are pitting your work against that of others, and presenting it without proper qualification, I would just hold off on that edit, and keep it for yourself and those in your party, and enjoy it as such. I wouldn't have any problem selling something like that as a print, as long as I mentioned what I'd done to the buyer. Because, in that sense, the tower, or lack thereof, it becomes important - it reinforces our appreciation of open spaces, even if this one wasn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 10:03:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: it is your picture and your rules... it is just IMHO but I never based my horizon on moving objects. and one of the reasons why that tower is such an eye sore is that it is not vertical... our mind catches on it... if you don't want to remove it, I would suggest to make it vertical and see if you can keep it On the horizon, it’s within a degree or so of horizontal anyway. There’s actually a little topography in parts of NE Kansas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2021 10:08:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you could dodge or burn it away, a la Adams, sure. But, as it is, no, I wouldn't enter it. That tower, right or wrong, is a significant part of the landscape. All of photography is a lie. We keep things out of the field of view we don't want to be seen, we have colors and tone that weren't before our eyes. we have depths of field that are wholly unlike what the eye sees, we have motion blur and stop action unlike what we really see, and so on. So, yes, photography is a lie. But, from the standpoint of entering a contest, a contest where you are pitting your work against that of others, and presenting it without proper qualification, I would just hold off on that edit, and keep it for yourself and those in your party, and enjoy it as such. I wouldn't have any problem selling something like that as a print, as long as I mentioned what I'd done to the buyer. Because, in that sense, the tower, or lack thereof, it becomes important - it reinforces our appreciation of open spaces, even if this one wasn't. Thanks for that insight. As I said, this is one of my contenders for the hunting/fishing category. Here’s my other contender, which I think actually captures the moment of of the flush and the excitement of the hunt better, has better lighting, but is a frame grab from GoPro (which should still count as photography), and the resolution and quality just isn’t up to typical DSLR standards. And no goddam microwave tower.  Flushing Rooster by FredMan, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2021 8:26:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: So I'm going to making some entries in next year's Kansas photo contest, and this is one of my contenders: ... Now, most contest rules I've read say any editing other than "traditional darkroom methods" disqualifies a picture, so is it appropriate to submit an entry with this edit? And then the larger question; just how much photochopping is ethical (ethical in the sense of "Yes, I really did take that picture, and did not add in or take away elements")? To my way of thinking color, tone, exposure, cropping, etc are all perfectly ethical, but where do you draw the line? 1. What are the rules of "next year's Kansas photo contest"? That matters more than what "most contest rules" say. Honor the rules of the specific contest[s] entered. 2. Why do you share your images? Put another way, do you consider your images to be "editorial/journalistic"? Art? Sometimes each? The answer to this question defines the ethical boundaries for the affected images. FWIW, contests that I've seen truly intent on allowing only editorial images require both the raw image and XMP sidecar as part of the submission. This allows them to confirm all edits for compliance. As for the general question of "photography ethics" as it applies to the edit in the OP, the image is stronger without the distraction of the tower and its removal does not change context of the subject. Present the image as art and be done with it. Peter Lik doesn't catch heat because he sells works of art, but rather his claims to the contrary. If you present yourself or your work as "photojournalist," then honor the ethics of that genre that consider the tower edit impermissible. I have spoken. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2021 1:13:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for that insight. As I said, this is one of my contenders for the hunting/fishing category. Here’s my other contender, which I think actually captures the moment of of the flush and the excitement of the hunt better, has better lighting, but is a frame grab from GoPro (which should still count as photography), and the resolution and quality just isn’t up to typical DSLR standards. And no goddam microwave tower. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51686153416_107bd0593f_b.jpgFlushing Rooster by FredMan, on Flickr Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you could dodge or burn it away, a la Adams, sure. But, as it is, no, I wouldn't enter it. That tower, right or wrong, is a significant part of the landscape. All of photography is a lie. We keep things out of the field of view we don't want to be seen, we have colors and tone that weren't before our eyes. we have depths of field that are wholly unlike what the eye sees, we have motion blur and stop action unlike what we really see, and so on. So, yes, photography is a lie. But, from the standpoint of entering a contest, a contest where you are pitting your work against that of others, and presenting it without proper qualification, I would just hold off on that edit, and keep it for yourself and those in your party, and enjoy it as such. I wouldn't have any problem selling something like that as a print, as long as I mentioned what I'd done to the buyer. Because, in that sense, the tower, or lack thereof, it becomes important - it reinforces our appreciation of open spaces, even if this one wasn't. Thanks for that insight. As I said, this is one of my contenders for the hunting/fishing category. Here’s my other contender, which I think actually captures the moment of of the flush and the excitement of the hunt better, has better lighting, but is a frame grab from GoPro (which should still count as photography), and the resolution and quality just isn’t up to typical DSLR standards. And no goddam microwave tower. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51686153416_107bd0593f_b.jpgFlushing Rooster by FredMan, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2021 8:20:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even with the still image .gpr raw files, you just don't have the dynamic range you would have with raw files from a real camera. Exactly. But that frame grab is, to my eye, a much more powerful image that embodies everything I hold dear about upland bird hunting in Kansas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2021 3:35:38 AM EDT
[#20]
I played at gurushots for a while. There are pictures in there so heavily edited that there are actual image elements that are entirely artificial.
Editing a picture for color, contrast, sharpness, exposure, etc. are a totally normal part of the process. You MUST do some processing if you shoot RAW. That said, you can take photoshop and literally create images without ever using a camera. I think there is a point at which an image differs so much from the camera capture that it is no longer a photograph and is instead some kind of digital graphic art. Things like swapping out a sky, adding clouds, adding a moon, etc are all moving into the realm of digital art rather than editing a capture of a scene that actually exists in reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2022 2:21:39 PM EDT
[#21]
IDK for me personally this is fine. (The contest rules may still disagree)
For me, when its not fine is when you swap the sky or added the bird into the image, then try to pass it off as being authentic. That would be unethical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2022 10:24:21 PM EDT
[#22]
I guess, the more I think about it, is that if it’s LR only edits, no question. It’s when PS comes in that things get murky. Remove an element that has no bearing on the image? Maybe. Add ANYTHING, definitely not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2022 10:32:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess, the more I think about it, is that if it's LR only edits, no question. It's when PS comes in that things get murky. Remove an element that has no bearing on the image? Maybe. Add ANYTHING, definitely not. I had this beautiful, pastoral scene of a verdant field with a stream running through it, cows grazing, it was beautiful. There were also power lines hanging right across the field. I edited them right out, along along with a few cows that had moved and cause ghosting because it was a 3 exposure HDR shot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 7:30:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Photos exist on a sliding scale:
documentation/news ------ photos as art ------ art that started off as a photo All positions on the scale are valid. The problem comes in when the position on the scale is misrepresented. Only documentation/news photos have limits on them regarding the type of edits allowed. Most people with cameras either have "documentation" photos with no out-of-camera edits or have "photos as art" with edits to improve the photos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 7:43:17 PM EDT
[#25]
The rules say what you can do in a dark room is okay. Can you erase the tower in the darkroom?
Frankly, you didn’t do a good job on photoshop anyway. It’s pretty clear that’s not tree. It looks wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 10:02:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The rules say what you can do in a dark room is okay. Can you erase the tower in the darkroom? Frankly, you didn’t do a good job on photoshop anyway. It’s pretty clear that’s not tree. It looks wrong. Yeah, it was a hack job. And I bet it could be taken out in a darkroom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2022 10:54:10 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Photos exist on a sliding scale: documentation/news ------ photos as art ------ art that started off as a photo All positions on the scale are valid. The problem comes in when the position on the scale is misrepresented. Only documentation/news photos have limits on them regarding the type of edits allowed. Most people with cameras either have "documentation" photos with no out-of-camera edits or have "photos as art" with edits to improve the photos. I think this sums it very well. 19th century photographers sometimes did extraordinary things to doctor plates/negatives, so it's not just Photoshop's fault. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2022 12:51:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Personally I am a naturalist guy, ie leave what is there, there. That is just me.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File