Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 23, 2004, 10:51 AM   #1
Pekkle's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 41

I have been looking at some lovely Autumn photographs on various sites. I'd love to take some photos like that, but there are no locations locally that look nice.

If I was to take two or more photographs from different locations and use Photoshop to blend them into one photo, would that be frowned upon?

The end result might be a beautiful picture, but would the fact that Photoshop had been used, degrade it?

In a photographic competition I imagine it would be cheating, but otherwise if the end result is nice, does it matter how it came about?
Pekkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 23, 2004, 11:17 AM   #2
Senior Member
aladyforty's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964

As long as the basic composition is the same I see no problem with enhancement of a photo such as cloning out lamp posts wires etc and saturating color and using the curves etc.

However to take say three different shots of different places and blending it is not a true representation of a photo, I class that as clever digital art and would never do something like that for competition except where the criteria states digital art.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2004, 12:37 PM   #3
Senior Member
José A.'s Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 367

Well, if it's a photographic competition which states no post-processing is allowed is one thing. It would be cheating indeed. But I think that the point made about "digital art" is very accurate. Perhaps, to be OK with your conscience you could mention the post-processing made each time you post your photo. About being frown upon... I agree that it's better, and in some aspects perhaps even "more respectable" to have a great picture directly out of the camera and post it as such. But, if YOU take one or more pictures, and then YOU use your Photoshop skills on them, why should the result be something not to be proud about?

Well, just an opinion.
José A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2004, 4:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
pjohnc's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 168

I wonder whether you are loking round for views that look like the scenes in other people's pics, rather than trying to see pictures in your surroundings ?

I lived in Coventry for almost 40 years (Binley, Stoke and Wyken) and whilst I agree that it is not a scenic wonderworld, I have some shots that I am pleased with taken along the Sowe Valley walk, for instance. A little further afield there are (or were) some nice wooded stretches of the canal around Brinklow which would show some nice autumn colours, I should think.

I do not know your transport situation, but how about the Stoneleigh area ? And Kenilworth and the River Avon ?

OK, I realise that this doesn't answer your question - I agree with the comments that thhe others have made - but these are just a few thoughts that struck me as I read your post.

Regards, John
pjohnc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2004, 12:27 PM   #5
Pekkle's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 41

Yeah, I think you are right. I am looking at other photos and thinking there is nothing locally like that.

I have an Olympus E-20 and my father has the E-1. We often go out on a "photo shoot" but come back with nothing special.

Transport is not a problem. I know the places you are talking about. I don't have a photographer's eye so I'm probably missing lots of things.

I'd prefer to be able to take a good photo rather than mock one up in Photoshop. I think I just need a few years of practice.

I always seem to end up with "record shots" rather than photographs.

Anyway thanks to everyone who replied here.
Pekkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2004, 7:18 PM   #6
Senior Member
BillDrew's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512

Pekkle wrote:
... I'd prefer to be able to take a good photo rather than mock one up in Photoshop. ...)
Even if you are trying to create an image in PhotoShop, it is easier and the result will be better if you start with a good photo.

Think of PhotoShop as your "digital darkroom". All sorts of tricks can be done there, but the basic processing is worth learning. Your camera's settings (contrast, brightness, EV bias, saturation, white balance, ...) are somewhat analogous to choosing the film for a chemical camera. And like film, how you process the digital image can make a big difference in the final result.

The first time you dig a bit of detail from a dark part of a properly exposed photo will convince you of the value of post processing.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 3:32 PM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436

It is a bigger question than the previous answers may have led you to believe. We are getting into the distinction between photography and imaging.

Photography is the process by which we capture reflected light onto a photosensitive surface, focused by means of a lens,and yieldinganimage.

The expectation that the photograph captures the actual scene is why photographs are allowed in evidence in court. If your car is damaged in an accident, they take pictures to prove the extent of the damage so that you can go ahead and have the car repaired without having to keep it in the damaged state for sake of the court. They accept the picture as a true representation of the reality of the damage.

In photojournalism, the integrity of the photograph is as important to the credibility of the newspaper as the truth of the story that they write. People seeing a photograph in a newspaper have the expectation that it is a true representation of the events referred to in the story.

Most people, in everyday life, have the same expectation that a photo that they see is also a 'true representation' of the real scene or the person or the event.

However, there are situations where that is NOT the expectation. We don't necessarily expect that advertising photos are exactly as they came from the camera, and photos of obviously fantastic things (like winged purple elephants buzzing the Golden Gate Bridge) are self explanatory and produce no confusion in the viewer.

Then we come to the difficult 'middle ground'. For artistic reasons, an artists my decide to alter an image to achieve a certain effect. That image may be indistinguishable from a photograph taken directly from the camera but it is unethical for the artist to pretend (either by directly lying or by allowing people to assume) that the image hasn't been altered.

So, for artistic reasons, GO AHEAD! make whatever alterations you want. It is your work of art! But let people know that the image is a composite. Don't blow your integrity by trying to claim that you did indeed see the moon rising in the North when you really pasted it in because you thought it would look good.
Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 8:22 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

It should not be forgotten that even with film, unless you do the developing yourself, the lab is probably enhancing contrast, sharpness, maybe even playing some with the color.... all without even telling you.

So if anyone tells you than doing anything to a photo is no longer a photo, then they really don't know what happens to film when you get it printed.

I generally agree with the people above. Blending photos together really isn't photography any more, but it can still be beautiful. So go and do it... just don't miss-represent it.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2004, 3:13 AM   #9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 141

Of course, there's a very significant distinction to be made between adjusting contrast and "the moon rising in the North". One merely addresses exposure - with very definite limitations -, while the other manipulates composition - with seemingly no limitations.

I like your post, Meryl. The distinction between photography and 'imaging' is very well explained.

"...it is unethical for the artist to pretend (either by directly lying or by allowing people to assume) that the image hasn't been altered." I could not agree more.
EOS RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2004, 9:12 AM   #10
Senior Member
hedwards's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190

I agree, thanks meryl for that excellent post.
I personally choose to make the photos so blatant when i have done more than cropping that it is beyond obvious. Apart from raw conversion these days i don't really do much in the way of "computer art" but it is fun and amusing on a rainy day.:lol:
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 AM.