Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Is it ok to use PS and edit your images?

  1. #1

    Default Is it ok to use PS and edit your images?

    Some ppl will find that its considered cheating.

    views?

  2. #2

    Default

    HEhaha...
    we have gone thru this...


  3. #3

    Default

    Originally posted by Bluestrike
    HEhaha...
    we have gone thru this...

    hehe
    link?
    sorry

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Yeah, we have gone through this at least once. Do a search on manipulation, editing, touch-up, etc.

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Yeah, we have gone through this at least once. Do a search on manipulation, editing, touch-up, etc.

    Regards
    CK
    so.. how?
    want to go thru again?
    hehhee

  6. #6

    Default

    I think it's ok if you state that you had PS done on it...

    Using photoshop to touch up or improve a picture and then claiming that the original picture is untouched... That's a different matter.

    PS can be used as an artistic tool to create special effects or improve on a slightly flawed picture, but I think the originator should indicate that PS was done.

  7. #7

    Default

    Hehehe.
    Sorry fellas.
    Me newbie lah.
    Cos i've seen lots of lousy pictures, which turn out great when it had gone thru PS touch ups.
    Im guilty of that as well.
    But i wouldnt want to be labelled a cheat, neither do i proclaim myself as a photo genius.
    So im not sure if its ok to do post processing in PS.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Well, you already unknowingly do some 'manipulations' the moment you shoot.

    Film - you choose a film based on its characteristics - e.g. you probably choose Velvia if you want highly saturated shots. In PS, you adjust saturation as well, no diff here.

    If you shoot negs, then the lab operator would have done colour correction, sharpening as well. No different from you doing same in PS.

    Filters - ever used polarizers? They modify the picture also. Same to star filters and all.

    I feel it's perfectly fine to do adjustments in photoshop to correct colour, adjust saturation, contrast, etc. Like I said, unknown to you, these has already been done by lab operators when you send to them to print. It's not taboo to use PS to do all these operations yourselves. Digital Photography is a new paradigm and has a slightly new way of doing things.

    The issue comes in when you say, add a moon to your Singapore skyline shot, for example. Then you are adding/removing things which are not there when you shoot, which some feel unethical. In cases like this, it's best that you mention such manipulations.

    Of coz, for obviously manipulated images, there isn't even a need to say that you have manipulated it.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Giantnookie
    Hehehe.
    Sorry fellas.
    Me newbie lah.
    Cos i've seen lots of lousy pictures, which turn out great when it had gone thru PS touch ups.
    Im guilty of that as well.
    But i wouldnt want to be labelled a cheat, neither do i proclaim myself as a photo genius.
    So im not sure if its ok to do post processing in PS.
    There's no such thing as a lousy picture looking great after going through photoshop. Garbage in, garbage out. No amount of photoshop is going to improve an out of focus picture, badly taken picture, pics with camera shake, etc.

    Regards
    CK

  10. #10

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Well, you already unknowingly do some 'manipulations' the moment you shoot.

    Film - you choose a film based on its characteristics - e.g. you probably choose Velvia if you want highly saturated shots. In PS, you adjust saturation as well, no diff here.

    If you shoot negs, then the lab operator would have done colour correction, sharpening as well. No different from you doing same in PS.

    Filters - ever used polarizers? They modify the picture also. Same to star filters and all.

    I feel it's perfectly fine to do adjustments in photoshop to correct colour, adjust saturation, contrast, etc. Like I said, unknown to you, these has already been done by lab operators when you send to them to print. It's not taboo to use PS to do all these operations yourselves. Digital Photography is a new paradigm and has a slightly new way of doing things.

    The issue comes in when you say, add a moon to your Singapore skyline shot, for example. Then you are adding/removing things which are not there when you shoot, which some feel unethical. In cases like this, it's best that you mention such manipulations.

    Of coz, for obviously manipulated images, there isn't even a need to say that you have manipulated it.

    Regards
    CK
    Great tips dude.
    Will take note.
    btw..you sound familiar.
    Ever bought a guitar for your son before?

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Giantnookie


    Great tips dude.
    Will take note.
    btw..you sound familiar.
    Ever bought a guitar for your son before?
    No, I don't do guitars and I don't even have a girlfriend, letalone a son.

    Regards
    CK

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    No, I don't do guitars and I don't even have a girlfriend, letalone a son.

    Regards
    CK
    ok sorry pal.
    WIll take note of your tips.
    Thanks.

  13. #13

    Default

    I'm relatively new to photography as well. I enjoy the freedom my digital camera gives me, but I love the feel of my old manual film camera (and the darkroom work that comes with it).

    Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with PS. You're merely making a good photograph even better. What's wrong with that? We all want to improve our works. If your photograph is fundamentally flawed though, then even PS can't save it.

    PS saves me money because I don't have to buy so many filters; it saves me time because I don't have to decide which filter I want to use at the critical moment, and because I can apply the filters to my liking after the exposure has been made. I can also do things which are hard to impossible to acheive in the wet darkroom, like cloning out a distracting element, or removing your own reflection, and even down to mundane tasks like dodging and burning.

    I don't really care how much PS I apply to an image. What it all boils down to for me, is that if, at the end, I'm happy with the results, than that, as they say, is that.

    NB: About saying whether your photograph has been manipulated or not, I find that it's unnecessary. When you send your photos to the digital lab, they're usually manipulated for you; when you print in the darkroom, you'd usually adjust the contrast or exposure to suit your tastes. When you scan the photo into the computer, it's up to the scanner to manipulate your photo. When people view the photo, it may or may not look the same as what you see. Even on prints, the same print may look slightly different under different lighting conditions. List can go on and on, but I think you'd get my point.
    Last edited by void; 8th February 2003 at 08:52 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •