But I will be meeting Brc so that makes it all worth it!
Let’s keep the photoshop discussion going…I think it is a valid exploration of when to process or not…or should you always process.
Oh and Dad…check out the comments in the previous post with your picture…seems some of the NE readers are getting outta hand there.
ETA: IvoryHut sent the following email this morning…and it really does provide anoth backbone for our discussion…
when processing really, really works (and is direly needed) … is when you have a camera that won’t cooperate and refuses to capture what your eye sees.Exhibit 1: this shot that Tim took while we were in Trinidad. It had all the elements of a great shot, but somehow it just wouldn’t register on his camera.
I am now ready to receive rebuttals.
January 23, 2008
I am traveling again ( urgh, never post when tired)…SDJ gripe #8943
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Woo Hoo. Gonna meet the Shrewbie!
Comment by brc — January 23, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
You are traveling aging? Traveling agang?
Comment by ivoryhut — January 23, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Like sharpening I think saturation is a tricky thing. A little goes a long way.
In your examples, I think that 1a and 2a are clearly more colorful and interesting to look at. The difference in the sky in both of them is dramatic in terms of pulling out detail.
However in both, the colors are so vivid that they seem fake. The blue along the edge of the top of the boat in 1a and the blue sky peaking thru near the palm tree in 2a are a bit unreal. But so what? It all depends on what the artist is after. As I said, I think the after pictures are more interesting even if the colors are very bright.
If we can salvage an ordinary photo by pumping up the saturation then I say “go for it.”
Comment by brc — January 23, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
You have to take pictures and eat something when you meet – its a mini-SGDT!
Comment by karmardav — January 23, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
I think both re-touches look great. If they are more consistent with what the photographer recalls, then I say go for it!
Comment by jenfera — January 24, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Shrew…I thought those were some UFO’s in the clouds of your Airline pic. BTW — Man, does that look familiar.
Anywho, I finally realized that it was the reflection of the lights inside the terminal…you know, ‘cuz I’m smart like dat.
Comment by music maven — January 24, 2008 @ 5:00 am
Brc, I know see what you mean about the skies. They do look almost fake now that I think of it, but in reality, the sky (especially in the second one) was actually even bluer than that. And even for the first one, it was closer to the original because it had just started raining, so there was still that cyan kind of blue in the sky before it started pouring. It’s the same thing with my Mexico pictures. The blue looks really fake, but that was the thing I remember the most about Cozumel – the blue of the water and the sky was simply unreal. It was like nothing I had ever seen before, and it almost made me feel like I was inside an aquarium. The water looked like someone dumped vats of that artificial blue stuff that you put in aquariums (aquaria?).
So now I wonder what the thought is behind doing the opposite thing – toning DOWN saturation and color away from the original in order to make a photo look more realistic. Hmmm …
Comment by ivoryhut — January 24, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I think the term “realistic” is where we might all struggle. Color for the most part is a consistent experience for person to person…however…the way we internalize it is very different.
Take 2a…to some the blue in the sky is too blue…to me it looks real…however the yellow in the water and of the wood railing closest to the viewer seems over saturated…is my opinion based on the fact that I gravitate towards blues? It is biased because I think of wood turning silver with exposure to salt air (which may not be true for this variety of wood).
The one thing I will say is…If you had not shown the SOOC shots…would anyone have questioned the color at all?
Additionally, in 1a…I believe and I could be wrong here…you may have taken dramatic liberties with the image for impact…however that could have been the way the light and sky was. I know for my plane shot above…the sky was not THAT dark, but the window (as cleva MM spied) has a coating on it that made the clouds look all icky yellow…so black and white it was and I punched up the contrast to convy a feeling I was having when I took the shot. (Yes, there was doom and gloom because once again I am seeing the United Flight Crew more than my Beau.)
So the question becomes in my mind…is it okay to push a communication objective (emotion, color impact etc) into the processing of a photo or must you come as close to WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)?
Comment by Shrewspeaks — January 24, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
I don’t think a photo needs to be “realistic” or even mirror a scene as we remember it. IMHO I think a photographer should work with an image until he/she comes up with an image that he/she likes… regardless of whether it reflects reality or not.
I’m recalling the bad yellow flower picture that Ivory played around with after going to the PS workshop. The final result is really cool and has little to do with the original photo or with reality.
The one thing I will say is that unless they are fairly extreme (e.g. whole-can-o-photoshop) I really (just my personal opinion) dislike photos that strive to look like reality but really look like overdone Photoshop. Often people don’t know when to stop on the sharpening and the saturation (and Ivory I am NOT referring to your Trinidad photos).
Here’s an example of a photo with heavy saturation, but it’s done for effect and it works:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1301/536941709_ad3505e8aa.jpg?v=1181860520
On these two I think they tried to enhance, but went too far:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2330/1812399178_57b6c29f3b_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1261/890770845_d0c2dcba63.jpg?v=0
Comment by brc — January 25, 2008 @ 4:07 am
Brc, thanks for the disclaimer. I have such regard for your eye that if you said you thought any of my photos were overly Photoshopped, I’d run and re-do them pronto.
But if it’s early in the morning and I haven’t had any tea or cereal yet, then maybe I’d walk fast and not run just yet.
I ask myself which photos speak to me the most, and usually, it’s photos that look, to my eye, like they could be SOOC. I am with you in that if I can tell how much post-processing was likely done to a photo, I lose interest in it. But as you said, there are other photos that I know MUST be post-processed, but they really, really work.
I can’t help but think about the food analogy again. (Food’s a big thing with me. I didn’t need to say that, did I?) When I go to restaurants and taste the food, I can pretty much figure out what went into it. If I start thinking in my head how I would have prepared it differently to make it taste better, then it’s probably the last time I’m ordering that dish. But now and then, I’ll have a dish that just knocks the socks off me, and my brain tells me: “Stop analyzing what the ingredients are and just enjoy it!” Those are the dishes I’ll likely keep ordering again. Sometimes, the dishes are really deliciously simple. Sometimes, they’re out-of-this-world combinations, like curry and vanilla, or tamarind and plum sauce. Either way, the final product is really good and “finished,” and to my taste, there’s no need for any further tweaking.
I shouldn’t have typed all that before breakfast. Now I have to excuse myself
runwalk fast to the kitchen and grab something to eat.Comment by ivoryhut — January 25, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Ivory I love your analogies!
I agree. If you look at a photo and your immediate reaction is to think about how much it was Photoshopped, then it wasn’t done right. The objective should be to communicate something or evoke an emotional response. Though there may be a great deal of Photoshop involved, that shouldn’t be what the viewer is thinking about.
Comment by brc — January 26, 2008 @ 12:36 am