Photo shoppin' pix

[Pacerr]

Ok, so Ron's editors can spot his PP tweaks, but I just don't see how this could possibly apply to deer . . . unless they're concerned about publishin' pictures of artificial "racks".  

H2

http://www.foxnews.com/sc...ge-retouching/?test=faces

[davidhampshire]

pacerr,   i think you have a thing for pretty women  !   

[spyglass]

If you really want to pass off a heavily manipulated Photoshoped image, work your magic on your image, print it, then take a photo of the print. The pixel layout will not show any distortion, odd random occurrences, etc.

Anyone remember back in the darkroom days when you would make an image by cutting out pieces of photos and layering them on top of each other to make a montage, then place a piece of copy glass on top, use a copy stand, and take a photo of it to end up with a single negative that contain the intended photo. (great for old UFO, Bigfoot, Monsters, etc)   -  Probably how the USA faked the moon landing photos 

Spyglass

[Pacerr]

Anyone remember back in the darkroom days . . . ?

Bite your tongue, Spy!   Of course we don't!  

However . . . I've heard you had to be especially careful about ensuring the lighting and lens POV was the same on all the bits 'n pieces in the montage and that it was much harder to blend using real dodging and burning wands 'n masks than with PP tools.

And it must'a been much more expensive to experiment with trays full'a developer, hypo and variable contrast printing paper than with layers and a 'Control+Z' keystroke too -- or so THEY say.

H2

[davidhampshire]

i envy you guys that learned on film,   film cameras,    all of that,     i feel like sometimes with digital ,   it's like building a house on no foundation,   or maybe having to jack a house up ( the digital stuff )  and cobble a foundation under it,   sort of,    if you know what i mean.....     dave

[Pacerr]

i envy you guys that learned on film,

Gee, if I'd only known how valuable those ol' stained, smelly cloths were gonna become I'd have saved 'em these last 50 years! 

I suppose some folks wanna learn to harness a team to the wagon to appreciate their auto transmission too?  Truth be known, I can't think of a thing from those days that couldn't have been learned a whole lot quicker an' cheaper with today's digital gear.

H2

[Ron Kruger]

Don't give me any ideas, Spy. You guys are a bad influence.
One can do, and in most cases, is expected to process digital files to enhance the IQ to the maximum, although design artists tell me the common tendency is to over-do it.
What is tabo, and can get you blackballed, is using PS features that can be used to alter the content, whether you alter that content or not. I avoid using anything that involves layers, cloning or healing brushes--anything like that. Get it right at time of capture (or as close as possible) and keep PP to a minimum if you want to submit anything for publication. Keep the resolution high and don't crop much. Standards of IQ for print publications is much, much higher than for the internet or home printers.
We got away with some tricks during the film/slide days, because there was no way to check what was done. With digital, it's all in the numbers.
I do PS images for print sales, such as the one below, but if I submitted this to a magazine, I'd never sell them another image to them, so I don't even touch PS for images I want to submit. I don't even want the software name on the EXIF files. PS is a curse word to many editors who really don't know much about photography. It won't get you banned (as long as you don't use it for anything "artful" or "creative," but I'm convinced it causes them to be suspicious. Besides, for standard editing, I think other programs are better, especially for Pentax images.

[Pacerr]

Aww, man, would ya look at that. He's even rented a MOON!

-------------

But seriously, if you shoot RAW but submit JPG there's gotta be SOME subjective post processing unless you ignore the RAW file all together even if the intervention is through pre-shoot menu choices. And if you just submit RAW you've lost all control over the product / esthetics of the image you submit.

There has to be a reasonable and rational distinction between completing the picture as originally intended using PP (i.e., crop = composition, WB = filtration, etc, etc) and unethical misrepresentation and manipulation of the subject. Even studio lighting or fill light flash could be considered "tampering" with the REAL subject.

Some PP, let's call it ethical PP for lack of a defined label, is the equivalent of selecting a film type, lighting, filters, and type of processing. Cropping is, to my mind, an important part of composition since the fixed film formats (which are a compromise of one sort or another anyway) rarely satisfy the BEST composition choices.

I can't imagine a successful editor/publisher would reject an otherwise desirable image simply because it had the finger-prints of ethical PP in it's EXIF side-bar data.

And the ethical reputation of the photographer counts too. Like most fraud and counterfeit attempts, the light of public exposure has a way of revealing the deception in its own time.  As it's said: You can post a thousand photos and never be called a photographer; but . . . uh, kiss one toad -- even with the Clone Tool -- and you're labeled a toad-sucker for the rest of your life.

H2

[blackcloudbrew]

Actually, it was the buck that was rented I believe.

[spyglass]

Actually, it was the buck that was rented I believe.

Tisk Tisk...... a Rented Buck and a PS'ed layered in moon. It is enough to drive a magazine editor to drink.....