How much Photshopping is too much?

[Analog6]

http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php?id=11708 - link to an article discussing the over use of Photoshop for manipulating images.

I am not a fan of overly processed images.  I copied this link from another forum I am on where the majority think he was hard done by, mainly on the basuis that if it is OK to alter an colour image to B & W, then it ough to be OK to drastically change the colours.

IMHO these images are grossly overprocessed. I am with the judges on this one. It was a PRESS photographer award, not an Open or Artistic award. To me a press photographer, by definintion, records facts. The first image, the landscape, is almost surreal in comparison to the original, and so is the second one of the woman in the slum.

I have long been appalled at the licence allowed professional photographers and the awards they win for massively photoshoppped/manipulated images. I have one in a magazine here where the original image was a very flat landscape of the White Cliffs of Dover. Once the photographer had added 21 photoshop adjustment layers and totally changed it from a flat landscape to a very oversaturated dramatic stormy one it won first prize in the landscape section. Frankly, to me it is cheating.

The jury/panel voted out his images based on the fact that he's altered the colours too far from the original image.  What do other think?

[Tim N]

I usually dont like photos which have been really processed, sometimes they can be good tho.

I dont know how much is too much tho. Pretty much EVERY photo taken with a digital SLR needs some sort of manipulation, I havent taken a photo and thought, awesome, no need to photoshop this at all.

BUT ... what is the idea of photography ? To convey an image which the photographer (artist) had in his / her minds eye and present that to an audience. If that image happens to need or get some serious photoshop work then why not ? Is it not still the original "image" is the composition still the same, did it not take the same skill to set up / find / see the image in the first place and then press the shutter ?

The images in the example website, for a start, the guy was Haiti, seriously, I would a) never go there, b) if i did, not take thousands of $$ worth of equipment, c) probably not be able to take photos as good as the photographer, manipulated or not.

Does photoshop mean that the real meaning of the image is destroyed ? Sometimes.
Does photoshop mean that it no longer records facts ? Sometimes.
Does photoshop mean that an image is no longer a "press" photo ? Questionable, but I would guess sometimes.

I guess these days to be a master you need to use all the technology available to you which means being a master of the digital darkroom and that means photoshop !!

[Ross and Cher]

Not a fan of overly processed images either, but I'd disagree with you about these being grossly overprocessed! Yes he was outside the rule ("Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure. You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image's original expression") but I think he is very good at what he does!

How is adjusting colour any different from straightening a horizon, digital blending (or HDR) to dodging and burning etc etc! I used to be against adding bits (eg birds) into images, but that seemed hypocritical when I was happy to use the clone tool to erase power lines!

I also liken it to how much impact $'s and camera technology have on an image and whether that is any different to the use of photoshop - eg Tim's surf shots are excellent images, and they are reality if you look at life trhrough 600mm lenses! Steve's Christmas lights were also brilliantm but certainly assisted with super high ISO of his camera.

Although I doubt that we will ever progress much beyond amateur ranks in world of photoshop - (lack of time & money),
 not sure that I agree with the interpretation in the rules above as to where the imaginary border of acceptable photoshopping lies,- surely it is the right of the photographer (Artist?) to present the best possible image to his target audience as much as it is the right of individuals in that audience to look or look away! (and told you it was a sure fire way to get discussion flowing!!!!)

[OZZI-BLOKE]

All RAW images need adjustment for colour saturation, tones, contrast and more. In saying that, I don't
think that people need to go overboard with it. The images on the web page did seem to be a bit overdone
but not as far as some I have seen. Post processing was part of the darkroom technique to with film, its just a lot easier now and more can be done, its part of the process.
A jpeg image that is straight out of the camera has already been manipulated by the in camera setting set by the manufacturers, they have setting built in to make the image look good. Colour, contrast, saturation and more can all be adjusted in the settings before the image is taken, the camera adds these adjustments to the shot when it is taken so therefor it has been manipulated in a way to make it look good.
I think that if entering a competition the images should comply with the rules for that comp, if they want
or have a class for manipulated images then fair enough. There was a photo comp here in Corryong when the festival was on and there was a mixture of images from straight untouched to heavily adjusted shots.
The shot that won was of some surfers catching a wave, the image wasn't to bad but most people didn't think it should have won. While the foreground of the shot was nice and sharp and the colours and tones weren't to bad the photographer had added a good bit of motion blur behind the surfers to add some movement to the water. It looked out of place and stood out like a dogs proverbials. If photo manipulation is going to be done it should be done in a way to add appeal to the image and if you are after a certain effect, at least let it be known what you were trying to do with the shot.
Considering that the competition was a media comp I think there should only be minimal adjustments. 

[storm_crow]

The pics almost look HDR to me.  I feel that for a contest of this nature, the pics should not have been allowed.  I'm guilty of Photoshopping my pics sometimes, but I never try to conceal that fact.  And, I never try to pass them off as "untouched".  Usually, with editing - less is more.  More or less.

[admin]

I think that in news reportage, the facts only should be presented, with no cloning and only basic adjustment of the rendered image.
However, other than that, any artistic interpretation within the bounds of the specific rules of a specific contest should be allowed.

No body told Van Gough to get his act together and paint inside the lines ....and Dali, Sheeeesh!
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
It is up to the creators of a contest to set clear and concise rules. Those in the article referenced clearly allow for a lot of interpretation. Within the bounds of that contest, I too think that the images were overdone.
As an artistic effort tho' and in terms of the subject matter, I like them.

[Analog6]

I agree on the art part, but for a journalism photo comp I think it should be reasonably true to the original scene.  That is why I asked the question.

And I think a high degree of photoshopping should have to be declared in photos, like the 21 adjustment layers I referred to which ended in a totally different image from the starting point.  Clever, but not landscape photography.

[admin]

Agreed, Happy Birthday to you again!!

[Analog6]

Well, here is a link to the winners in the competition discussed.  http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=113&bandwidth=high

If they haven't got just as much PP as the ones they disallowed then I'M the Dutchman!  A fine case of double standards and hypocrisy, in my book.  Maybe the poor bugger got someone off side.