Is photoshopping pictures bad (in write ups?)?

CEE DOG said:
Wow! Thats quite a difference! The picture you show last actually looks the most realistic.

The ipone pic looks cartoonish to me
Click to expand...

I agree. Another problem in the equation is the computer screen we are using to edit/view as well. I find myself using my wife's Mac to check the final pics as my screen sucks and I feel hers is very good!



I shoot each pics a few times with slight adjustments hoping for a good final shot. ;)
 
RaskyR1 said:
Another problem in the equation is the computer screen we are using to edit/view as well. I find myself using my wife's Mac to check the final pics as my screen sucks and I feel hers is very good!
Click to expand...

Thats a great point!

RaskyR1 said:
I shoot each pics a few times with slight adjustments hoping for a good final shot. ;)
Click to expand...

I do the same. When I'm doing a review I take multiple pictures. Then when I put them on the computer. Sometimes they all suck (can't see anything) I go back out and try again with different lighting.

This is a litle different then color change but heres a couple pics from my Opti clean review. In the first one it was still light outside (like 5-5:30 PM)
Picture didn't show barely any of the flith I saw. I ent back out later (second picture) and look at how the flash (activated by lack of light) lit up all the filth.

Before using any product on either side

01_BEFORE.JPG


Left side in this picture is identical to the first picture

10_50-50.JPG
 
Cory I think that just helps show even more that the most experienced users can get away with less/no editing simply because they know exactly how to adjust the camera to capture the best picture in every situation.


I'm Chad and I'm a camera noob! :D
 
Thanks Rasky for the picture examples . I dont think any less of you or anyone else if this is how you are photoshopping pics.

I have to say I originally thought it was much more sinister before understanding more about it .
 
RaskyR1 said:
Cory I think that just helps show even more that the most experience users can get away with less/no editing simply because they know exactly how to adjust the camera to capture the best picture in every situation.


I'm Chad and I'm a camera noob! :D
Click to expand...

I just gotta say this.........There are only a few detailer's that I have gotten to know that I actually look up to and admire their work, who am I speaking of...Well one is Chad...aka...Rasky...there are others....but Chads work speaks for its self......I would put my money on Chad as being one of the best in the business....and I would walk away a wealthier man. I respect his work !!
 
th0001 said:

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.
Click to expand...

Agreed fully. While some guys (myself included) have been able to take advantage of some of the things the interwebz can provide, others have build their careers and reputations away from the internet. While AutoLavish is somewhat well known online, we continue to fight to get our name, work, and reputation out to those clients who aren't on various forums. Those are often the clients with the nice collections I'd like to work on anyways, so finding ways to make ourselves known is something we continue to try to promote.

Todd "The Game Changer" said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some good points, and things have surely evolved in photography which gives birth to a new level and type of work. Surely a guy like yourself has seen more of what a good portfolio can do for an individual more than most of us have.


Philosophical Todd said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Touche! This is what is hard. I know you're a fan of HDR type shots, and while they have a bad rep, when done correctly they do more to show how a scene as it looks in real life because of the multiple exposures coming together to capture color at different depths of field.


Todd said:
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).
Click to expand...


Its not that we don't agree on the use, if anything it's just we don't agree on what should be done in certain conditions. The Orange color you describe reminds me a lot of the TT Gallardo I recently posted. A pearlescent color isn't going to look the same in overcast as in the sun as in the shade. That's part of the beauty to me though with pearl colors; depending on where/how you see them will change the look. Black=shiny Pearl Orange=deep/shiny/bright/glowing depending on light conditions.


Todd the Sage said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think that's something we can all agree upon. In the end transparency and honesty is clutch to the community. If someone does extra editing, I think it's not as much of a problem as long as they're not trying to be misleading in what they did or their intentions.

BTW - Great thread and topic
 
wendell jarvis said:
I just gotta say this.........There are only a few detailer's that I have gotten to know that I actually look up to and admire their work, who am I speaking of...Well one is Chad...aka...Rasky...there are others....but Chads work speaks for its self......I would put my money on Chad as being one of the best in the business....and I would walk away a wealthier man. I respect his work !!
Click to expand...

I would agree with this Wendell, no need to wonder about Chad's work.
 
Thanks Wendell/Dana. :redface:


Hey Todd, How about getting a photography section added to the forum where people can ask questions about camera settings, exposure, taking pics of defects....
 
If you want to be sure your screen is properly balanced, you should set the gamma properly.

You can see web sites like

www dot lagom dot nl / lcd-test/gamma_calibration dot php

to help you check your gamma. Most Windows users set it to 2.2. Adobe includes a gamma adjustment utility with their graphic programs.

Some displays come with .icm files to get the right profile.
 
wendell jarvis said:
Thanks Rocket....You are actually another person whom I have allot of respect for.
Click to expand...

I most certainly and with no reservation agree with wendell on both of these characters :smile:

Bunky said:
If you want to be sure your screen is properly balanced, you should set the gamma properly.

You can see web sites like

www dot lagom dot nl / lcd-test/gamma_calibration dot php

to help you check your gamma. Most Windows users set it to 2.2. Adobe includes a gamma adjustment utility with their graphic programs.

Some displays come with .icm files to get the right profile.
Click to expand...

Al, your photos are awesome! The photo you took of Sky at detail fest is my favorite photo of her to date.
 
So my question is where are you getting your Paint Shop Pro / Photoshop, and how much are you paying? I can't see paying a large amount of money to simply process my photos.
 

Attachments

  • pc7424.jpg
    pc7424.jpg
    3.7 KB · Views: 140
TroyScherer said:
So my question is where are you getting your Paint Shop Pro / Photoshop, and how much are you paying? I can't see paying a large amount of money to simply process my photos.
Click to expand...

I have Photoshop Elements but really like Picasa for speed, simplicity, basic picture adjustments, and quick exporting for posting.

PSE needs lots of memory to run effectively even in the organizer view.
 
I downloaded Picasa to help me with exported image files at work. It was free. Not sure if that was a full version or not but it does a lot for free!
 
CEE DOG said:
I downloaded Picasa to help me with exported image files at work. It was free. Not sure if that was a full version or not but it does a lot for free!
Click to expand...

Picasa is from Google and there is no more function version. Of course, Google is more interested in you posting pictures, etc. They are always giving apps for free to encourage their view of the world.
 
Not my position to judge on this matter. And since there is no definitive way to police it, its tough to catch who's doing it for the right or the wrong reasons.

As for me, I just hate being told I photoshop any of my pics, especially those of correction shots when I don't, and have never.

I chalk that up to an insecurity factor by those making such claims. Also apparently I am too young, too inexperienced to work on X car, take too many correction shota of my work and on and on. I do everything I can to prove the work done in any one of my writeups, moreso than most people I would say, yet for some reason I stay under attack. What more could I possibly do?

As for adjusting the settings on my camera when shooting in sunlight or overcast weather, sure I do that... otherwise I would have wasted $600 on a DSLR and I could have just got another point and shoot and shot in automatic, but photoshopping out swirl marks... absolutely not and if anything maybe I should take that as a compliment. Its like saying a woman has a boob job when shes all natural ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top