Western Railroad Discussion > What can I do with this - is it cheating or not?

I took this photo in Chama in June this year. Over on the Eastern board ( http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,2915184 ) has been a really interesting discussion of what constitutes "cheating" in photoshop.

Now, I regard this photo as a "cheat" to begin with - it's the .jpg off the camera, not a RAW image post-processed. But I've done nothing to this. I have a really good idea WHAT I would do with this if I actually printed it.

So, I'm throwing this out for commentary from all - if this were your photo, what would you do with it to print it as a 9x13 format vertical?

And PLEASE, be brutally polite about what you would do! I am very interested to know. Tomorrow I'll post what I would do with it, but one of the reasons I picked it is because there's some visual blemishes and other problems with this one. Not unsalvagable, and in fact it is what I wanted, but I want to hear what other people think. It's an interesting discussion, and I'm intensely curious to use this as an example of what is "fair game" and what is not. I kind of think the other discussion has run it's course, so putting myself up as a 'crash test dummy' might be fun.

Wait. Did I say that?

Oh, the second one is simply gratuitous eye candy. OK - feel free to comment on it too, but I couldn't resist posting a boast, because that one is nearly exactly what I want straight off the camera as a .jpg!

Steve Krause
Chillicothe, IL

---

---

I'm not sure that I understand your dilema. Photography is an art form. That includes not just taking the shot, but cropping, retouching, framing; whatever it takes to get the result you want. Before Photoshop was invented, serious photographers used airbrushing, dodging and burning, masking and other methods to achieve the desired result. Where is it written that a photograph must be unretouched?
Bill Pyper
Salem, OR

The image is your capture and follows your muse. Do with it what you will to make the best wall hanger. There is NOTHING Photoshop can do to the image which could not be done in a chemical darkroom. The difference is you can do it on your computer and do not have to spend hundreds of dollars and hours of your time working with a lab. Jealous people who want to cripple Photoshop's capabilities should not hold you back. Start with a little saturation to the sky and see what you think. Great photos for setting the mood.

arb

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

I am an amateur photoshop user, so take this with a grain of salt.
I think what happened to you, and happens to me, it the camera senses the light in the sky and underexposes the middle and foreground areas.
I first use the "lighten shadows" tab under the "adjust lighting" tab under the "edit". You can move the slider to see how much of the effect you want, it begins with a 25% value. I have found an amazing amount of texture and detail in what at first review of an image are hopeless shadows. This works for me with jpeg files, which is all I generally use as my images are just for my amusement and casual sharing with friends.
Interestingly, this edit worked for me on scans of black and white prints, the PS software saw texture and detail in the printed black (to me) shadows in the images.
There are many more sophisticated edits possible, we both look forward to reading more posts here.
To my mind exposure edits in PS are no different than what a film photographer would do with the developing and printing process in a darkroom, not cheating in any way.

I think the second photo is much better than the first. Both the tracks and the clouds sort of point towards the right, whereas in the first there doesn't appear to be any reason for the shot, just a bunch of stuff. However I would certainly use the fill slider to see how much light you can get in the lower half of the photo , being careful of the noise. But as others have said its your ideas and what you like that really count, not mine. :-)

wjpyper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure that I understand your dilema.
> Photography is an art form. That includes not just
> taking the shot, but cropping, retouching,
> framing; whatever it takes to get the result you
> want. Before Photoshop was invented, serious
> photographers used airbrushing, dodging and
> burning, masking and other methods to achieve the
> desired result. Where is it written that a
> photograph must be unretouched?
> Bill Pyper
> Salem, OR

Unless you are claiming to be a true photojournalist* I second the motion.

*I refer to those journalisticaly documenting whatever, in which case photos not only should not but cannot be 'retouched' in any way whatsoever to be legitimate, although I would submit that adjusting contrast and brightness is purely a matter of printing and not retouching. Unfortunately the term term 'photojournalist' has been obscenely corrupted by second-rate reporters relegated to doing smarmy feature stories that local news stations now use to take the place of real reporting, which of course not only costs more money but frequently offends high-paying advertisers....

I can't offer advice for how to improve the image (lighting etc.) as I have yet to learn a photo editing program. If it makes you feel any better, I remember 12 years ago I told a friend of mine I enjoyed photography. He asked what camera I used and I said digital. He said I was cheating. I guess I am still a cheater.

-Alex

I'm betting Steve wants to clone out the power line that separates the top from the bottom of the picture. If that is what it is, go for it - it's your picture (as has been said) and if that feature (or some other that we don't see but you do) bothers you or diminishes the value of the photograph in your mind, you should edit accordingly. Lowwater's comment about photo-journalist is also spot on; this is art, not a piece of evidence to be used in a trial that must show every detail as it exists.

Did Rembrandt paint every detail in some of his classics? My bet is he did not, but that didn't stop them from becoming art that hangs in museums.

Hm. OK - maybe what I'm seeing in this is different than everyone else.

I have several shots that are more evenly lit. I was in the yard about 40 minutes before actual sunrise because I wanted this sort of light. I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned HDR adjustment.

The two biggest flaws IMO are the tone/hue of the sky versus the foreground, and the peculiar framing this positioning gave me.

So, framing is easy. Crop from the left and leave a 9x13 size frame, with the tank spout available.

But, my eye and mind remember a pinker/rosier sky. The camera meter "got me" and over-exposed it out of the .jpg. Some of it is in the RAW image, but now I've exceeded the dynamic range of printing paper and/or computer monitor. Hence, dealing with the sky first (as fbe suggested). But I'm inclined to bring it back to what my memory says it was.

And HDR is a kind of third rail around here.....

What I want is a rosy sky, nearly a silhouette of the coaling tower with a hint of the mineral brown on it, and the water tank shed and speeder about "as is". olor, but not detracting from the sunrise. That's the focal point. If I can get the rails to shine just a bit more, leading to that rosy sunrise..... That's stretching it a bit perhaps.

And I don't mind the power line to the coaling tower, although I think it's legitimately in question. The artifact that I dislike is the modern flood light on the power pole, aimed at the ready tracks. In fact that entire power pole is objectionable, because it breaks up that sunrise glow.

There's also a couple big weeds against the water tank shed that don't add to the photo.

The main thing I see though that touches on a sore point I'm hearing on threads is the use of HDR to pull up the colors I remember, versus what the .jpg shot shows right now. Obviously I haven't gotten around to doing all this, partly because I've got better shots! The second shot is more what I was after that morning, but it was taking about 10 minutes later and that rose glow was gone.

The old saying of "f8 and be there" still holds true sometimes!

Steve Krause
Chillicothe, IL