How much PP is too much?

[MN Shutterbug]

I understand everyone may have different viewpoints concerning this subject, but how much post processing do you think is too much, in regards to it still being the actual photograph. I'm basically referring to cloning and painting and related. You can see by my example that with a little work, a person can really change and improve the looks of a photo. But, do you think I've gone too far? Do you see it as no longer being the real photo that I captured. Do you consider it as being deceitful and unethical. I think many photographers do this with a majority of their photos. However, I'm not sure if it's right.

[Steve Foss]

Mike, that's an excellent question, and it's one each of us must answer for ourselves.

First, I'll say that I doubt very much most photographers regularly alter a photo as much as the example shows.

A person's beliefs or perspectives often change over time, but here's how I look at it right now, at this point in my life. Ethics are not decided by committee or peer pressure. To take a personal angle on this, I evaluate what I believe is right in my own mind and proceed from there. And I don't much care whether 90 percent of the world thinks I'm wrong — or thinks I'm right. What goes on inside my head is not a democracy, and my decisions are between me and my conscience.

I would not generally undertake the degree of alteration in the example shown above. Would I possibly do it? Sure, it's possible. Depends on the situation.

Great discussion to start, Mike!

What do others think?

Oh, and one technical note. When photographing red birds (well, any textured reds), a person will bring out more detail in the feathers by desaturating slightly. Saturating smooths the reds out and removes detail.

[JohnK]

I think it depends on what the photo is for. If it's a journalistic shot then I don't think anything should be removed, or added, to the photo.

For a nature shot like that I don't see anything morally wrong with cloning out the excess branches and changing the background color, it's still a nice capture of the cardinal. I actually prefer the original with the natural background though.

I've done almost the same thing with this shot, cloned out a branch that was on the right coming up right next to the bird.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l185/handcannons/Birds/DSC_2759_Hawk_cropped_adjusted_sm.jpg

And the original just resized:

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l185/handcannons/Birds/hawk_resized.jpg

[finnbay]

This is a good question. Photoshop is a powerfull tool and what can be done with it is unreal. The kind of photography we do leads to some flexibility in a person's desire to show a nature scene, or create art. Cloning out a piece of grass, or softening the edges allows us to interpret a scene. Not so with all types of photography. Photojournalism is a whole different ball game. Not too long ago a photojournalist for a large paper was fired because he cloned out a foot that showed below a fence in the background of a shot he took and submitted for publication. Personally, I'd like to take the shot as close to what I'd like the final image to look like and keep the PP to exposure, saturation, sharpening etc. I'm not above cloning out a small distracting element, however. Sometimes a small branch, or man made object in the background that I didn't see before the shot might be made to disappear. I had an eagle shot earlier this winter with a before/after where I'd taken out quite a bit. I am evolving. Don't like to do that, and if it takes that much work, probably won't again. On the other hand, art for art's sake might open up those boundaries (like in my Christmas card this year).

[Jim Almquist]

If the picture is for your own personal use I have no problems no matter what you do to a pic. For some reason all I can think of is the Glamor shots that are not quite what the person really looks like but are nice all the same. When it comes to nature I think it needs to be a lot closer to the original but if there is a little Photoshop done that improves the overall look that cool as long as it is not to drastic(small branch,blade of grass,dust specs)but what X did is a little too much

[DMN]

X-tackleman,

I pesonally think frames are fine, but for nature, I prefer the natural looking ones like the first shot here and others you have posted here.

PS

That must have been a lot of work to clone out or is it easier than I think.

I am new to photography and even newer to Photoshoppy things.

DMN

[MN Shutterbug]

 Originally Posted By: jimalm

but what X did is a little too much

Hey, at least I didn't put a cigar in his mouth and a beret on his head.

I'm just trying to get other photographer's views on this. I'm just thinking this may be done more than we realize. Photoshopped by the right person and nobody would ever know.

[MN Shutterbug]

 Originally Posted By: DMN

PS

That must have been a lot of work to clone out or is it easier than I think.

I am new to photography and even newer to Photoshoppy things.

DMN

It's drudgery, in my books, but not all that difficult, once you learn how to use the lasso tool and different brushes.

[mmeyer]

I'm kind of a computer person so I guess I don't have a problem with it most of the time. I think if you're doing it to make it a better photograph and not to deceive then it's ok.

Besides, that's what a painter does isn't it. They can take out or add anything they want to a scene to make it the way they want it. It's all art.

[yakfisher]

I think that messing around with PS helps you to learn the tool better. A photo really is just a snapshot of the photographer's perceived reality. We all do PS to our own memories, adding or subtracting details over time. Just ask two people to describe the same event 5 years later and I bet you will get two different answers. Both true but with each story adjusted to the perceptions of the teller.

I agree in photo journalism one must adhere to the strictest standards of truth. It is a journalist's job to report the truth, and not a twisted version of it.

As for the rest of us, while photography can seem really technical at times ultimately I feel it is art. As artist we need to use it to convey our message, whether it be the reality of what we captured or the presentation of what we wished we had captured.

Just my opinion

[buzzsaw]

WOW!! First off, nice job!

I personally wouldn't go that far in PS to clean up an image, I spend my time making sure I setup in an area that will have a good BG vs taking a pic and messing with it later. With that being said, cloning out sticks or grass that gets in the way of the main subject is something I do as often as it requires.

I was going to go into my workflow, but that can be for another discussion.

Good subject.