Eastern Railroad Discussion > How Much Photoshop is o much Photoshop?

So, years ago I  took a very mediocre photo, poorly exposed, not
real well composed, and a completely blah sky.  After a trip through
Lightroom and Photoshop, it's stepped up to an OK photo (subjective
opinion).  Point being, it's pretty heavily edited, including the use of
the new sky replacement feature in PS.  So, when does it get to the
point of to much?  
It certainly is amazing what modern software can accomplish.

Image 1- The NS Business train heading into Morrisville Pa.
PHOTO AS TAKEN
Image 2- Same image, edited and with the sky replaced.

John R
https://www.flickr.com/photos/twenty17teen/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/21 16:37 by PC1073.

---

---

I like the clarity inprovement. Tell tale to fixing is the suspect yellowish grass.
RB

  I think it's too much photoshop if you do anything to make it look like you want it to look instead of making edits to compensate for the limitations of the gear you used. I think train photos are more valuable as history than they are as art, and any pictures made to fit an idealized view of the world ought to be priminently labeled as art rather than history. I don't see why one would stop at removing phone poles or graffiti when you can paint in an E8 in your favorite scheme or Casey Jones himself at the throttle. I feel bad for future rail historians who won't be able to differentiate between fact and fantasy.

As for this photo, my first reaction is that it looks a little too perfect, like real estate photos where you know the house doesn't really look like that except in the sales literature. To me the colors in the grass and trees look off, and the lack of shadows looks too ideal. I do think the sky looks great, though.

I appreciate the request for feedback by the OP. I see a lot of photos on TO that look overprocessed to the point that I avoid those posters. I know it's a matter of taste and the gracious contributors don't need to hear my opinions so I don't complain. But since we're on the subject, mark me down for someone who likes "flawed" photos with grit rather than "perfect" ones that you could never see with your own eyes.   

The retouched photo looks a little over processed, and the original is hardly blah....if it's how the day was in reality....it's fine. But that sky replacement gadget fwiw does do a good job.

The saturation is dialed up a bit too much but rail photographeres have often liked that going back to the days of Fugi Velvia film.

Rich

It's too much, but could be easily adjusted back to a more realistic scene.  It's not as bad as what a fair amount of fauxtographers are doing nowadays.

The sky is a definate improvement, otherwise the photo was fine. Milky skies are always a distraction.
Go

You have sold your soul to the devil...

I like it.  Gallery shot now.

The enhanced version is superior.  It is a stronger image, and that is what most of us strive to create.  It, like all of our work is a representation of a three demension world, but on a one demension flat screen.

Not bad, I might have strived for something in between these two. I agree with Richard, the saturation is a bit much but I've seen waaaay worse. My pet peeve is having good cross level, ie a level horizon, vertical buildings, etc. It's one of the easiest things to correct, even on your phone, but too many folks don't take the less than 60 seconds to correct it (the posters are good!). As for rail photos being "more valuable as history than they are as art", well, to me the best rail photo transcends our little train buff world to where even the non train person will enjoy it- and that usually means leaning towards the art side of things. I've always enjoyed seeing different takes on how folks see things, even if I wouldn't do what was done myself. To do rail photography (or any photography) just to create a document misses a lot of what can be seen and can hold back creativity.

Roger Durfee
Akron, OH

Way too much,maybe change your shutter speed,but pic two is way over done,just my oppion ,Scoob