Photoshop pictures

[Patrick Kelly]

I have had

people say that they hate to see photoshoped pictures. I believe that if you only use it to

enhance a picture, it is fine. If you overdo it it looks strange. I took a picture a little while

ago that I will post three ways.
The first one I only used photoshop to resize the picture.

Nothing else. You will see fins of other fish, spots on the glass, and a little reflection above

the fish. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/finman57/092406nops.jpg

The next one, I used it to crop some excess, resize, clean the

spots in the glass, and used the unsharpen mask only a little because of the resize. I also used

it to put my name on the picture. You will see the color is the same so I did not play with that.

It was not needed in my opinion. Its not the best picture. The blue portion of the tail is only

partially there. But someone accused me of enhancing the color on this fish on another forum. I

also would have preferred the fish to be turned a little more. Hard to see the size of the

fish.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/finman57/092406postps.jpg

The last one has things done a little more. Added more sharp. I

played with the reds to make his color look better. The contrast has also been played with a

little. Like I said I think a little goes a long ways. I prefer the second picture. What do you

think.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/finman57/092406toomuch.jpg

[bobrfish]

You are an artist.

Depends on where the photo will be published. On a forum, image one. On cover of BB, image two.

In books like Tepoot's, image three.

[Patrick Kelly]

Thank you.

[tjudy]

I prefer the second as

well.

I do not have a problem with using PhotoShop because it can correct problems that

are created by the lighting and the camera. I often will crop an image and then use only the

'auto levels' tool. If the image turns out to look unnatural, I will undo it and then

adjust brightness and contrast independantly. I rarely feel the need to adjust color (and I am

really crappy at doing it).

Here is a shot right out of the camera..no adjustments

whatsoever:

http://webpages.charter.net/tedjudy/fish%20images/testA.jpg

Here is the same image cropped with no

adjustments.

http://webpages.charter.net/tedjudy/fish%20images/testB.jpg

Here is the picture using just the auto levels

tool:

http://webpages.charter.net/tedjudy/fish%20images/testC.jpg

I thought the adjusted image was too light, much of the detail

of the fish was lost, and the irridescence on the fish's face was over powering... to bright

compared to the natural look of the fish, but it was close. I did not undo the auto levels, but

went ahead and adjusted the brightness and contrast independently. I decreased the brightness

(down to -20 from zero), then increased the contrast (up to 8 from 0) because too much irridescence

was lost. Here is what I came up with. The colors are true...

http://webpages.charter.net/tedjudy/fish%20images/testD.jpg

This is not the sharpest image I have ever shot, but the idea is to see what just the

basic adjustments will do without messing with color.

[bobrfish]

I like this fish Ted, what is

it?

I also like image #2 better than #3 and #4. Mainly, it appears color has better

saturation.

[tjudy]

Pelvicachromis taeniatus

'Nigeria green'... a wild male. This is the male of my '$250 pair of kribs'.

To get them I had to buy a whole box, which were so starved that 90% of them died over the period

of a month. Only one female survived. I suspect that the fish are sterile due to organ damage

from not having food for an extended period of time... but they are pretty.

[fishmaven]

<div

class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>What do you think?<!--QuoteEnd

--></div>
I like the second photo best too.

I find photoshop too

intimidating. There are other imaging software products simpler to use. The newest is Nikon's

Photo Capture 4. There are some that are even free.

Pat, anyone that would accuse you

of using photoshop to enhance your colors probably couldn't have taken a shot worth enhancing.

Either ignore them or reply that the shot didn't need it.

Most, myself included,

would be better off if we had taken the money spent on Photoshop and bought a better camera. Dan

[Patrick Kelly]

Thank you Ted and

Dan.
I use very few features of the Photoshop. I never seem to have the time to experiment.

Maybe this winter I can learn more.

[maddog10]

Now Photoshop would be

worth while if it could turn a ps. acei into a albino baenschi.

[MoJo]

Photoshop is a tool and should be

used accordingly. No one gets "points" for producing a photo that COULD have been

enhanced or fixed. Use it.

Great photos, Pat.

[Gill Plate]

I agree with Ted nothing

wrong with touch up as long as it is not done to create something that was not therre in the first

place.

[buntbarsch]

Photography has always had

two elements. In the past the first step was to take the picture and the second was to enhance the

photo during the development of the film. These days step one is still the same but the second

step now is the enhancement with computer software. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that

IMO as long as it only make the picture better and does not distort it into something totally

different.

Pat, your photos are always awesome and I do enjoy them very much. I have no

problem at all with picture #3 because it still shows the fish in it's natural colors.

The use of "Photo shop" or other software will always be a subject where opinions go in

different directions. In the end it all comes down to a matter of taste.

[Frank T]

old thread...

using it to change the color of the fish should not be done, thats as bad as lieing or

making hybrids.
just filtering out the yellow or something from a cheap light, something like

that dont see a prob with.

i like to take the background out, just make it black, maybe

take out another fish that got into the pic thats about it.

[bobrfish]

<!--quoteo(post=3068:date=Nov

24 2006, 01:17 PM:name=Benz_020)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Benz_020 @ Nov 24 2006,

01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=3068)</div><div

class='quotemain'>using it to change the color of the fish should not be done, thats

as bad as lieing or making hybrids.
just filtering out the yellow or something from a cheap

light, something like that dont see a prob with.</div>
Our eye

sees the reflection of light from cichlid flesh. If one changes the lighting surronding the fish

but not the color of the fish, would that not be a lie?
The work of a photo artist is to show

something that we normally do not see. What we do not see is there before us but we just do not

see it. In the case of a Nature photo artist, these photographers bring an image to life that in

real life most of us overlook as nothing special.
This is not lying, it is art. Some

photographers are master artists and some can barely point the camera in the right direction.

[Frank T]

<!--quoteo

(post=3088:date=Nov 24 2006, 10:50 PM:name=bobrfish)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobrfish

@ Nov 24 2006, 10:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}

></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Our eye sees the reflection of light from cichlid

flesh. If one changes the lighting surronding the fish but not the color of the fish, would that

not be a lie?
The work of a photo artist is to show something that we normally do not see.

What we do not see is there before us but we just do not see it. In the case of a Nature photo

artist, these photographers bring an image to life that in real life most of us overlook as nothing

special.
This is not lying, it is art. Some photographers are master artists and some can

barely point the camera in the right direction.</div>


not talking about that.

but, you edit the color of a picture that is intended to show

that. then it is a lie.
the fact that lighting and flash effects the color is understood,
using a program to change/add the color to whatever you like is not the same.

[bobrfish]

<!--quoteo(post=3089:date=Nov

25 2006, 12:14 AM:name=Benz_020)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Benz_020 @ Nov 25 2006,

12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=3089)</div><div

class='quotemain'>but, you edit the color of a picture that is intended to show

that. then it is a lie.
the fact that lighting and flash effects the color is understood,
using a program to change/add the color to whatever you like is not the same.<!--QuoteEnd--

></div>
There is a difference between lighting the fish with blue lights vs

shading fish with a computer. In both cases the photographer and maybe assistants control each

step. Neither is a lie. The photographer uses the computer as a tool just as a photographer uses

shutters, speeds, the light spectrum and many ohter factors. It is a long accepted practice to

develop film in various manners to affect the finished product, in addition film developed images

maybe reworked by hand. Now the power to affect the finished image is given to all who can afford

software not just to those with technical skill to understand what can be done with shutters, lens,

light and darkrooms.
There is another layer that no one talks about. Some images are shot

with 8 MB of pixels. The camera manufacturer has written an alogrithm to average each pixel with

it's neighbor so that the image we see is no longer 8 MB of pixels. One camera may use a

different algorithm than the next. Is one camera lying and the other camera telling the truth?
No photography is true whether it be shot with film and developed or digital and processed. It

may not be the photographer human who delibrately alters the image but the image is not true and it

is not a lie either.

[Frank T]

take something

simple and turn it ino a bunch of BS

waste of time, not even talking about the same

thing....

[MoJo]

<!--quoteo

(post=3091:date=Nov 25 2006, 02:31 AM:name=Benz_020)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Benz_020

@ Nov 25 2006, 02:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}

></a></div><div class='quotemain'>take something simple and turn it ino a bunch of

BS

waste of time, not even talking about the same thing....<!--QuoteEnd--

></div>


Dayum...what warranted that response?

I see

what he was saying. And you are both talking about pretty much the same thing. In Photoshop you

can utilize "selective color" and correct the natural color of the fish. Your eye is

just a better camera. Color temperature settings in camera can dramatically alter what the eye

perceives as true color. Taking out some of the yellow..cyan...whatever from what should be a red

fin isn't lying or even against any perceived rules. I am assuming that when you say

"change the color of a fish"..you mean like turning a Citrinellum Lime Green, right?

Patrick...do you shoot in camera RAW?

Fishmaven...have you tried Nikon's

Capture NX?

[fishmaven]

<div

class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Fishmaven...have you tried

Nikon's Capture NX?</div>

I don't own it.

I've only played with it on someone else's system. Dan

[buntbarsch]

Here is a great example

what I use Photo shop for. This picture of a show fish was taken at the OCA. It took me a few

tries to get the focus halve decent. However, who wants to look at pictures like this?

[attachment=147:attachment]

This is the result after cleaning it up with Photo

shop.

[attachment=148:attachment]

No color was touched. I cropped the

picture, adjusted the levels, used the unsharpen mask and cleaned up some of the watermarks in the

background that remained after the level adjustment. Personally I don't see why anybody would

take objection to that. Photo shop is a great tool to fix some pictures that under normal

circumstances you throw away.

Here is another example. When taking a picture of Charlie

Grimes, my flush run out of power.

[attachment=149:attachment]

Adjusting the

levels did not give me a great picture but a usable one.

[attachment=150:attachment]

Now I am not a computer guru or a photography pro and I'm sure that all I know about

Photo shop is maybe 1% of it capabilities but that little bit sure helps me a lot.

[Patrick Kelly]

<div

class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Patrick...do you shoot in

camera RAW?</div>

I do not. I guess I need to. Just

never tried to work with it much. Gets me confused when trying to process. I need to learn.

Pat

[MoJo]

<!--quoteo(post=3137:date=Nov 28

2006, 08:42 AM:name=Patrick Kelly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Patrick Kelly @ Nov 28

2006, 08:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=3137)</div><div

class='quotemain'>I do not. I guess I need to. Just never tried to work with it

much. Gets me confused when trying to process. I need to learn.

Pat<!--QuoteEnd--

></div>

It will shoot you forward a light year. Try it.

[phishphorphun]

The second shot of

your AER is my choice too Pat. Eliminating distractions to make the composition better, and

provide a more enjoyable capture for the viewer, has been done by most professional

photographers... forever.

This is a fascinating thread. Most of the reasons for using

photoshop have been mentioned here. I think Klaus' examples are right on the button for when

most of us should spend a little time in the computer darkroom. http://cichlid.ipbhost.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Since I shoot all my photos in

RAW, certain adjustments in levels and curves help get the correct colors that the digital

camera's processor may perform incorrectly. Once the raw software is set to my preferences, it

usually is good enough to be the default settings for most captures. Normally, just tweaking the

levels is the only real adjustment needed to make a fair photo better. Also, as Pat mentioned,

because of resizing for the web, sharpness adjustments like USM are required too.

Benny

Ng told me that spending more than five minutes in post processing usually means that the photo

should be trashed and reshot. That's why setup is so important. Clean glass, proper lighting

and/or flash positioning, proper camera settings, and an interesting composition can eliminate most

post processing.

My thoughts are that you can make a good photo better in

photoshop, but you can't make a bad photo good in photoshop. The camera settings, the

setup for the subject, and skill level of the photographer far exceed the importance of post

processing efforts.

[Patrick Kelly]

I see another great

photographer has joined us here.

Welcome to the site, Bobby