imported_detailchick
New member
I could better answer if I saw a before and after pic.
I dont know photoshop so its hard for me to say.
I dont know photoshop so its hard for me to say.
Is photoshopping pictures bad (in write ups?)?
- Thread starter Chuckmotor
- Start date
imported_JSFM35X
New member
Editing your photos is just like re reading a post and cleaning it up. I would ot feel the same way if you were using the clone tool to remove scratches or swirls. But editing allows for a more professional looking picture. You think that magazine photographers and motor trend photograpthers post right from the card?
imported_Flash Gordon
New member
I say whatever it takes to boost ones ego (even if that means altering your photos) then go for it. Just don't complain/cry like a baby when you are contacted by someone who has viewed your work via doctored pics, then you can't deliever the same results :2 cents:
imported_wendell jarvis
New member
I don't care for photo enhancement, other pictures its fine, but for detailing I don't like it, because there will always be newbies around looking to get into detailing and enhanced photos could discourage them, secondly, its not the true nature of the car, thirdly its kinda misleading...I have seen enhanced photos of details, contest etc....that would make your jaw drop, wondering how they made it look so good, for others that don't enhance photos they really don't stand a chance in a contest like that
ZL1Mark
Allergic to One Product
Not a good idea with detailing pics, IMO.
imported_CH.Detailing
New member
Like Todd said, slight corrections to bring the photo CLOSER to reality is fine by me, but when a photo obviously looks doctored or has been altered to improve the look of the vehicle beyond what reality would show is when its not the best choice.
imported_gewb
New member
I've been having this discussion for 15 years - which is how long I have been doing image enhancement for various reasons/projects. My enhancement work has ranged from insurance companies and police departments to an international magazine and two federal investigations. For me the response has always been "What do you need/hope to find/show in an image?" and always divulge what was done to the image and why it was done.
"Gentle" enhancement is usually acceptable to correct some type of minor deficiency, be it focus, lighting, or some equipment anomaly; "gentle" is the operative word here.
"Strong" enhance must be used to overcome a major deficiencey or outside influence and "severe" enhancement is used to override a severly dominant/deficient condition. Strong and severe enhancement often involves false coloring. As long as the methodology and reason for it are expalined, the enhancement is usually accepted.
In no case is "enhancement" acceptable with the intent to deceive.
Regards,
GEWB
"Gentle" enhancement is usually acceptable to correct some type of minor deficiency, be it focus, lighting, or some equipment anomaly; "gentle" is the operative word here.
"Strong" enhance must be used to overcome a major deficiencey or outside influence and "severe" enhancement is used to override a severly dominant/deficient condition. Strong and severe enhancement often involves false coloring. As long as the methodology and reason for it are expalined, the enhancement is usually accepted.
In no case is "enhancement" acceptable with the intent to deceive.
Regards,
GEWB
imported_Bunky
New member
I see nothing wrong with basic lighting or white balance corrections since some do turn out a tad dark or light.
CEE DOG
New member
To each his own. Personally I take multiple pictures in order to sift through the ones that are out of focus. I try to keep the ones that most represent what I saw in person.
However to your point: The pictures always look different then what I saw in person. Sometimes better and sometimes worse.
My doctoring photo technology doesn't extend beyond the program "paint" LOL. I use paint to add things like dotted lines and labels between sides of a 50/50 showing two different products.
If I had the program and knowledge or my profession hinged on better photos I might do what you wrote as well. Of course being sure that I didn't allow my photos to lie...
However to your point: The pictures always look different then what I saw in person. Sometimes better and sometimes worse.
My doctoring photo technology doesn't extend beyond the program "paint" LOL. I use paint to add things like dotted lines and labels between sides of a 50/50 showing two different products.
If I had the program and knowledge or my profession hinged on better photos I might do what you wrote as well. Of course being sure that I didn't allow my photos to lie...
Todd@RUPES
Just a regular guy
This is a great point! In the end if the detailer is able to deliver the results, as evidenced by a multitude of factors, then does it really matter.
For example I have never (knock's on wood) had a client say that any pictures of my work where better then the results in person. There are some detailers, regardless of age and experience, who have proven to deliver high quality results on a consistent basis. This is the internet but we all live in the real world.
I get what your saying (and in part I agree actually) but where do we draw the line in the sand? The fact is that not all detailers are using the same quality cameras (on the same settings) to begin with. Won't the advantage go to the person with best camera/photo skills in this case?
The only way to really judge the quality of a detail is to see it in person though.
Even photographs taken straight out of the camera are not the "true nature" of the car, and in many cases (on extreme dark or light colors) not the true nature of anything. (Example take a pic of a black car on a sunny day, the black car will look very dark and the background will look blown out). This is because there is limitations to how the camera itself processes the data it attempts to record it.
And there in lies the problem... Even 'box stock' photographs from the camera are not accurate in most cases. This is why people will take several photographs from the same angle and get several different results.
If you are attempting to replicate a more real look from the photo, then why? The problem, as eluded to earlier, is if you are misrepresenting your work, but that is a problem that will/should work itself out in real-life.
If you cannot deliver the results consistently in the real-world then no amount of internet fraudulence is going to help.
The reasons you can get several different looks from each photo is because of the limitations of a camera. There is some belief that how ever the camera chooses to process the data is the most accurate representation of the work achieved, and this is simply far from true.
The picture, as taken from the camera, is limited by the program, which is usually set to meter pictures in natural light. Bright days, dark days, overcast days, artificial light, etc use different logarithms to try to calculate what our eyes see. This is why, if you take a bunch of shots, you will get quite a variance in the quality of photos. This is why you can a "bad picture" or a "good picture" in terms of lighting and exposure.
Heck even changing the White Balance to a "UV Setting" is not really natural. The picture will often have a more natural tone as the program adds color where it isn't. What we see with our eyes, when looking at a black car in UV light is often very sterile and bright, which makes for a lifeless picture. By switching the metering mode to UV light you are no longer getting an accurate representation of the data collected nor producing a picture anything like what your eye's see.
CEE DOG
New member
I set my camera to my surroundings on auto and let it do all the work.
As to your point:
Heres a picture with beads on 2 different LPS's. In this picture one side looks much darker then the other. In reality their was a difference but it wasn't as much as you see here. Some times it works the other way around.
As to your point:
Heres a picture with beads on 2 different LPS's. In this picture one side looks much darker then the other. In reality their was a difference but it wasn't as much as you see here. Some times it works the other way around.
I disagree. I believe it does matter. Everything matters. Certain things mean more to certain people of course, but everything has a weight to it.
Todd The Great said:
Well said and I agree. Its always seeing the car in person that shocks the owner the most.
Todd said:
I don't believe in photo editing unless its a photographer trying to get what they believe to be the best shot possible in the end during a photoshoot. We're certainly not all using the same equipment, nor does everyone try to educate themselves enough (IMHO) on proper photography skills. To say the person with a better camera set-up is a better detailer would be to think the guy using Royale on every car they are to wax is a better detailer; you might fool some, but anyone who knows their stuff understands this is just one of many important aspects of what goes into making a detailer worth hiring.
To debate if there's an advantage in good photography is not needed. OF COURSE there's an advantage. The same type of advantage you get from working on some amazing cars, having rich clients, and knowing how to make clients happy: better marketing. A person can be the world's greatest and most knowledgeable detailer, but if they can't show proof of their work - they're pretty unmarketable. Photography allows someone to better capture what they're seeing and how things look in real life. I would now argue in place that the person better at editing pictures gets to have an unfair advantage over everyone else that doesn't edit their pictures in any way.
Even an entry DSLR with a standard lens and a tripod has everything needed to capture great shots. A good photographer will come out with great shots regardless of the camera they use; much like any great detailer could strictly use one product like and be able to do phenomenal work - it might not be the ideal situation, but it's goes to show the true skill behind the art.
Bingo. I think we can all agree on this.
Nothing is true nature, and there's no way to prove you and I even see light & color in the same exact matter either. Pictures are just representations of real life. Adjustable settings allows a camera to more accurately show real life because the color and light meter built into a camera is limited in its capabilities. Not only in changing the exposure setting, but in changing the white balance in accordance to the color temperature falling on subjects. Showing light in the correct color does a lot to show how something really looks. This is why the 3M Sun Gun was created: to have a VERY high Color Rendering Index AKA to mimic natural sun light very well.
Changing the white balance isn't natural? I can't think of anything more accurate to show how something truly looks. WB is made so the user can adjust the color temperature based off the lighting source being used. If you have a 2400K halogen bulb, it is not accurately showing how the subject really looks. This is the reason the Color Rendering Index of certain bulbs (technically they're called "lamps" not bulbs) are better than others; depending on how well they'll show color compared to natural light. If using blue-like florescent lamps with a 5200k temperature, people look dull, grey, and pale. They're not supposed to look this blue. To show them in a picture as blue is not showing how the people really look.
The big question of this discussion is where to draw the line. Everyone needs to make their own line for their own reasons. I don't like the idea of any detailing pic to be edited outside the camera. This is due to two main factors:
1. The camera has everything needed built in to take great pictures while overcoming the natural downfalls of its own limitations.
2. I don't trust people editting. It's easy to say "it'll only be used for good things" but with no way to enforce this or to make sure of it, I can't warrant it.
Todd@RUPES
Just a regular guy
Well said. I used the wrong punctuation in that sentence as it was supposed to be a question. But in the end different things matter to different people different amounts.
But it is how it could appear to some people...
But those who know their stuff will be able to differentiate the difference between a good detail and bad detail anyways. There are detailers out there who take so-so photos but you know they are doing top quality work. The same holds true in reverse.
Perhaps they are unmarketable on the internet but I know of a couple/few detailers who never go on the internet, do amazing quality work that rival anybodies, and have to turn down work because they are so busy.
.
Sure it gives them an possible advantage, the same as a better camera (or cooler cars) gives them an advantage.
Many of professional photographers that I have spoken to would argue that the skill behind the art is the processing of the photo afterwards. I also agree that most DSLR's are going to take adequate photographs in auto mode, and you can ratchet the ability by using the various manual modes.
Awesome. \m/I was actually going to get into perception but figured it was too far out there. But you are exactly right, there is more evidence to suggest that people see things differently to begin with. I also agree that pictures are just representations of what we see, so it seems we agree on most points.
But when we look a picture (which has processed data into it's own representation) we may not agree with what the results look like.
Take capturing swirl marks on certain colors. It has been my experience that you can never really capture how bad swirls really are, as soon as you look through you viewfinder you will loose a lot of the them (on most colors). However if you slightly increase the contrast (either in the settings of the camera or after you take the picture) you can often get a more accurate representation of the swirl marks. Which one is a more accurate representation? (Just a thought.)
I'm not saying that changing the white balance isn't acceptable, but I think I misstated my point.
When you take the photography, light enters the camera and recorded as data. (The negative). The camera then processes the data (based upon the settings and programs) to develop the photo. The data is processed by the camera to decide what the picture should look like. For example I have a 6 different UV light settings on my Nikon. I could shoot one picture with each UV setting then later choose the best picture.
Or I could shoot the data RAW, and process it myself, to arrive at the best picture. In the end the same process is applied, but the difference is in whether the processor in the camera does it vs. the human eye.
Agreed that everybody has to draw their own line, I have only tried to provide one (my) view out of many of the possible view points out there. You have another view and expressed respectfully, and I appreciate that.
I think this is our only point we don't agree on. Some limitations (black car on a sunny day) are hard/impossible to get accurate photographs of, same as a Pearl Orange/Tangerine on an overcast day. Even with manual settings it is very hard to get an accurate representation of the color with out throwing the background completely out of wack.
I also think that if cameras did a better job, programs like Photoshop wouldn't be so popular amongst photographers of all levels (this is just a guess though).
Unfortunately this is true with all of life. Steroids, for example, have medical benefits. Of course when most people take steroids they are doing it for an athletic advantage. It's not the steroids that are the problem, per say, but rather how people choose to use them.
mikeyg402
New member
Todd- can you post a few pictures that youve taken that arent adjusted then post the same ones that have adjusted. Its not to bash your claims or to be an ass either. Just for me Im more of a visual person, not that I dont like reading your posts but i like pictures :judge:
imported_Kevin Brown
Jedi Master
:-t :-t :-t
I know I am missing the big picture here... the "inside scoop"... I guess I haven't seen the "thread" over at "so and so".
I chimed in about polishing technique a while back on another forum. Funny, but the response for that topic could apply to this topic:
Joe Paint Polisher may be killer with a rotary, but not so great with a random orbital. For him, he may be wise to use a rotary. At least until he decides to learn more about the RO and how to get the most out of one. Of course, vice versa with the machines applies.
A guy like Asphalt Rocket prefers a rotary.
He seems to be very good with the machine. I say seems because most of us don't get the chance to see his work in person. We have to give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
A lot of guys appreciate Dana's work and help.
A guy like TH0001 is fiercely loyal to his rotary.
Or was. He now uses both the rotary and the random orbital.
He seems to be very good with the machines. I say seems because most of us don't get the chance to see his work in person. We have to give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
A lot of guys appreciate Todd's work and help.
A guy like gmblack3 is very good with his rotary, and preferred it for the longest time. Now he uses the random orbital with an interesting approach (different pad and process). He seems to be very good with the machines and happy to use a different approach, if only to learn something new and further hone his skills.
I say seems because most of us don't get the chance to see his work in person. We have to give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
A lot of guys appreciate Bryan's work and help.
A LOT of guys seem to be great paint polishers.
Some guys are DEFINITELY very good photographers.
Does this mean that any one of the three guys mentioned by name are suddenly less good after they switched to a different machine or approach, yet did not take fantastic pics?
Would a guy that is known to be a VERY capable paint polisher voluntarily post pics of a car that he deems to have a GREAT finish, even if it does not? Why would he risk it... to prove he's different? What a wonderful marketing campaign.
Nope- it is best that we give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
If some of us accept that any one of these guys are GOOD at what they do... most of us have to take their word for it and use the pics to help us along. If the customer chimes in and is happy, that's cool... but not even the pickiest of customers can pick apart a paint job like MOST of the guys on this forum.:buffing:
Whether or not two guy see eye to eye on all aspects of paint polishing does not matter. It's the finish that counts.
I know I am missing the big picture here... the "inside scoop"... I guess I haven't seen the "thread" over at "so and so".
I chimed in about polishing technique a while back on another forum. Funny, but the response for that topic could apply to this topic:
Joe Paint Polisher may be killer with a rotary, but not so great with a random orbital. For him, he may be wise to use a rotary. At least until he decides to learn more about the RO and how to get the most out of one. Of course, vice versa with the machines applies.
A guy like Asphalt Rocket prefers a rotary.
He seems to be very good with the machine. I say seems because most of us don't get the chance to see his work in person. We have to give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
A lot of guys appreciate Dana's work and help.
A guy like TH0001 is fiercely loyal to his rotary.
Or was. He now uses both the rotary and the random orbital.
He seems to be very good with the machines. I say seems because most of us don't get the chance to see his work in person. We have to give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
A lot of guys appreciate Todd's work and help.
A guy like gmblack3 is very good with his rotary, and preferred it for the longest time. Now he uses the random orbital with an interesting approach (different pad and process). He seems to be very good with the machines and happy to use a different approach, if only to learn something new and further hone his skills.
I say seems because most of us don't get the chance to see his work in person. We have to give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
A lot of guys appreciate Bryan's work and help.
A LOT of guys seem to be great paint polishers.
Some guys are DEFINITELY very good photographers.
Does this mean that any one of the three guys mentioned by name are suddenly less good after they switched to a different machine or approach, yet did not take fantastic pics?
Would a guy that is known to be a VERY capable paint polisher voluntarily post pics of a car that he deems to have a GREAT finish, even if it does not? Why would he risk it... to prove he's different? What a wonderful marketing campaign.
Nope- it is best that we give him some benefit of the doubt, and of course the pictures he posts tell part of the story. Customer satisfaction is a big deal, too.
If some of us accept that any one of these guys are GOOD at what they do... most of us have to take their word for it and use the pics to help us along. If the customer chimes in and is happy, that's cool... but not even the pickiest of customers can pick apart a paint job like MOST of the guys on this forum.:buffing:
Whether or not two guy see eye to eye on all aspects of paint polishing does not matter. It's the finish that counts.
Todd@RUPES
Just a regular guy
I'll dig through the examples and see if I can come up with one. I really don't photoshop my photo's as much as a I use Adobe Lightroom to process the raw photograph (sometimes). The problem is that I cannot post a raw photo because it is just data (lot's of 0's and 1's) so it won't be a very good reference. The overwhelming majority of my photo's are straight out of the camera, but I alway use Photoshop to reduce the size of them (instead of letting something like Photobucket do it).
Also for a lot of my final photographs I have been using HDR (High Dynamic Range) photograph's which when done correctly should present a more accurate example of what your eye's see.
imported_Flash Gordon
New member
Amen top all that ^ @-)
Theres alot more to detailing/running a succesful business then polishing paint :wizard:
Who is this Joe Paint Polisher you speak of. Is that the guy that never post his work :-?
imported_RaskyR1
New member
I think as long as the user is not editing the photo to hide defect or misrepresent his work than there is nothing wrong with it.
Here is an example from a month or two ago where I actually emailed two fellow detailers, Todd Cooperider and DJ Mayo. I was looking for some help/advice on a particular car since they are much more experience in taking pics than I and they also happen to have the same camera. For whatever reason I can NEVER get an accurate color representation with reds on my camera. I take the pic, load it up, and it looks nothing like what I actually see when looking at the car. What was even more funny is that I felt my camera phone was actually better looking in some ways than my SLR (though obviously it's high on the saturation).
Here is the pics I sent Todd and DJ.
Canon XSi. This pic was set on auto WB, but I've created custom ones before using a white sheet of paper. ISO 100 and aperture priority 9.0.
Here is with my iPhone 4
After some conversation with Todd I was able to create a custom setting on the camera to help eliminate the need for later editing, but in the above example I still had to go back and tweak all the pics I had already taken prior to his advice.
Note that I edited ALL of my pics (before and after) with the same color adjustments.
XSi pic edited (changed WB, bumped up saturation a tad)
If anyone thinks less of me because of this than so be it.
Just my $.02
Rasky
Here is an example from a month or two ago where I actually emailed two fellow detailers, Todd Cooperider and DJ Mayo. I was looking for some help/advice on a particular car since they are much more experience in taking pics than I and they also happen to have the same camera. For whatever reason I can NEVER get an accurate color representation with reds on my camera. I take the pic, load it up, and it looks nothing like what I actually see when looking at the car. What was even more funny is that I felt my camera phone was actually better looking in some ways than my SLR (though obviously it's high on the saturation).
Here is the pics I sent Todd and DJ.
Canon XSi. This pic was set on auto WB, but I've created custom ones before using a white sheet of paper. ISO 100 and aperture priority 9.0.
Here is with my iPhone 4
After some conversation with Todd I was able to create a custom setting on the camera to help eliminate the need for later editing, but in the above example I still had to go back and tweak all the pics I had already taken prior to his advice.
Note that I edited ALL of my pics (before and after) with the same color adjustments.
XSi pic edited (changed WB, bumped up saturation a tad)
If anyone thinks less of me because of this than so be it.
Just my $.02
Rasky
imported_Kevin Brown
Jedi Master
He will once his Polaroid shot scans into his computer screen.
It wasn't working so I told him to make sure it was taped on with the picture facing the screen... :-B