Time to Talk Real: Photoshop!

[ReefMadScientist]

Good idea. But I am guessing that almost every vendor uses photoshop. Even just to adjust exposure and white balance Which is totally acceptable. With LEDs it's almost impossible to get great pics without some adjustment. But it has to be a responsible
So saying no ps would be lying right off the bat

I agree with that. Fixing blur, enhancing the depth, etc. does not bother me as you mentioned it has to be responsible Photoshop. The color changing and enhancing the color spectrum is what gives me a rash.

 

[Pete polyp]

I agree with that. Fixing blur, enhancing the depth, etc. does not bother me as you mentioned it has to be responsible Photoshop. The color changing and enhancing the color spectrum is what gives me a rash.

Yep... Photo correction to what is realistic is not the issue. False advertising by abusing Photoshop to create an intensity of color, or completely alter the colors is where I find the problem.

 

[melev]

Just use 10,000K bulbs instead. :tongue:

 

[turbo21]

Just use 10,000K bulbs instead. :tongue:

I haven't used a 10k bulb since 1999. Haha

 

[hybridazn]

What's a 10k bulb?

:snicker:

 

[ReefMadScientist]

I guess the lack of posts and views on this thread proves that people are somewhat okay with photoshop. Sad

 

[Pete polyp]

Oooooo.... Its taboo....

 

[ReefMadScientist]

Oooooo.... Its taboo....

Yep, people too scared to talk about it.

 

[melev]

Okay, let's take a real life example. Which is better? What came out of my camera, or what I was able to produce with post processing?

First image is a screen capture of the RAW file, resized and Saved for Web (to reduce file size from 5 megs to 300k)

Here are the changes I made to clean it up.

This is what it looked like to my eye. It was shot with an off-shoe flash to the left of the coral, under VHO actinics only. It's very rare that a picture will be perfect right out of the camera... I get maybe 3 or 4 of those each year.

EDIT: And here's another thing that happens with my pictures, and I don't know why. Both of these images are 800 pixels wide, but when uploaded to this site they lose a pixel or two and I don't know why. The top image is 799 wide, and the lower image 798 wide. That kills the focus; bugs the heck out of me and I haven't figured out why it happens.

 

[Pete polyp]

I'm not.... Here's food for thought.

It has come to my attention that some people are using "tricks" to try and mask Photoshop abuse. Its becoming more common for pictures to pop up in sale threads and vendor sites that have a clean black background or using colored frag plugs. Has anyone ever noticed that when you see colors that seem to good to be true that the plugs will be some crazy color? The use of the black background and colored plugs normally tell me that the colors have been alerted. One thing that has developed over the years for me is bring able to look at photoshopped pictures and having a good guess at what it may look like in reality. I'm sure many others have developed the same eye as well. I'm not trying to claim that I know exactly what it will look like, or never being fooled by photoshop.

 

[Pete polyp]

Okay, let's take a real life example. Which is better? What came out of my camera, or what I was able to produce with post processing?

First image is a screen capture of the RAW file, resized and Saved for Web (to reduce file size from 5 megs to 300k)


Here are the changes I made to clean it up.




This is what it looked like to my eye. It was shot with an off-shoe flash to the left of the coral, under VHO actinics only. It's very rare that a picture will be perfect right out of the camera... I get maybe 3 or 4 of those each year.

EDIT: And here's another thing that happens with my pictures, and I don't know why. Both of these images are 800 pixels wide, but when uploaded to this site they lose a pixel or two and I don't know why. The top image is 799 wide, and the lower image 798 wide. That kills the focus; bugs the heck out of me and I haven't figured out why it happens.

Great image.....

I do not mind photo correction to depict what it looks like in reality. I do mind the use of altering the photo into something not realistic.

 

[howaboutme]

RAW images appear flat because it assumes some kind of post processing. Using a RAW image as a baseline is probably not appropriate. I would compare your 2nd image to something that is more dramatically altered and see if anyone will notice.

 

[Pete polyp]

These aren't reef pictures, but I will use this for an example. These pictures were created by stock windows viewer by clicking the edit button

Raw image

After editing

I should probably elaborate more on my position with Photoshop also. I see nothing wrong with using it to distort a picture beyond reality if its only purpose was for the artistic value. If you can edit a picture of a coral to something amazing then do it! Also be honest about it and say "hey guys, I photoshopped this thing to death and look at what I came up with!" Be proud of that creation, there's no reason you shouldn't be. The use to mislead for the intentions of selling a coral on the other hand is just wrong in my book. To me its completely taking advantage of someone through false advertisement.

 

[melev]

RAW images appear flat because it assumes some kind of post processing. Using a RAW image as a baseline is probably not appropriate. I would compare your 2nd image to something that is more dramatically altered and see if anyone will notice.

'

Fair enough. Here are two more. The difference is minor, but better imo:

Edits:

Final:

 

[turbo21]

Melev

Your photos looks great and I am sure it looks the same as what you see in person

Photoshop is a double edged sword. It is a must have to correct pictures with things like white balance and to make thigs the same as what we see in person. The problem is when a vendor who doesn't use it responsibly. And you end up with something like this

 

[trido]

Great thread. I'll post some before and after's tonight after work.
I don't buy anything online anymore either because of all the enhanced corals out there now days. I prefer to see mine in person before handing over my $$$

 

[howaboutme]

'

Fair enough. Here are two more. The difference is minor, but better imo:


Edits:


Final:

Great pictures! Subtle changes (though your history says otherwise) but they make a huge difference in how you perceived the coral. Even with all of that, you have not crossed the line (not even close) in misrepresenting the photo at all.

PS. You've nicely striped your jpegs of exif information.....:becky:

 

[Pete polyp]

Lets see what you guys think about this.... How much Photoshop was used with this image?

 

[melev]

Great pictures! Subtle changes (though your history says otherwise) but they make a huge difference in how you perceived the coral. Even with all of that, you have not crossed the line (not even close) in misrepresenting the photo at all.

PS. You've nicely striped your jpegs of exif information.....:becky:

I'm pretty sure "Save For Web" does that. Here's the data from Lightroom of that Lime In The Sky acro.

 

[melev]

Lets see what you guys think about this.... How much Photoshop was used with this image?

My guess would be heavily cropped, nothing more.