how much editing before it's too much?

[cheewai_m6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if this topic has been discussed a lot, i apologise, but i've searched for this topic and can't find anything specifically on it.

 

well, this question comes from me not having any experience in a dark room. i have bought myself a film scanner and it's great. i've been looking through some old negs and have found some shots which didn't turn out all that well when i had them develop and printed to 6x4. but i was looking through my negs on my lightbox. and i saw some shots which i think are composed quite well, but when it was printed, it just didn't give any sort of appeal. i remember these shots i just disregarded as 'not very good'.

 

so i scan the neg and put it in adboe lightroom. it was a b&w scanned from ilford delta 100. anyway in lightroom, i changed it to sepia, adjusted saturation, black, detail, constrast, a whole lot of adjustments. i added some vignetting and i turned this not so good shot into what i think is very nice image. i turned a plain old b&w (with good composition) into a sepia image with enhanced detail and contrasts.

 

is this cheating? i define cheating by making adjustments on computer, that could not have been done in the old darkroom days. even so, what's your view on it? what is too far? i'm inclined to call the result an image rather than a photo. am i making myself look like a better photographer than i actually am by making these images more appealing?

 

or, beacuse i didn't develop and print these shots, i am now simply turning my shots into what i initally visualised when i shot the photo?

 

or, does none of this matter, as long as i am happy with the end result?

 

i'm really interested to hear your opinions.

[MPJMP]

It all depends on how you view your particular form of artistic expression. Some photographers feel that their work is complete the moment they trip the shutter and want no "fixing" done after the fact. HCB comes to mind here.

 

Others see the initial image capture merely as a beginning, and find that their real art work comes in the darkroom, whether it be traditional or digital. This is how Ansel Adams viewed his art.

 

The person looking at the final picture usually doesn't care about anything other than if they like it or not.

 

Personally, I prefer to get the shot right to begin with. I like the way HCB always insisted that his prints include the edges of the negative to show the viewer that they were looking at his complete composition as he saw it through the viewfinder when he tripped the shutter. I like knowing that I nailed the technical aspects of the photo, such as exposure and focus. But, this is just an ideal. If you've got an image that benefits from some creative post-processing and digital darkroom finesse then there's nothing wrong with that if the final result makes you (or someone else) happy. Better to have a resuscitated image that people can enjoy rather than something wasting away at the bottom of a cardboard box.

[azzo]

.... " i changed it to sepia, adjusted saturation, black, detail, constrast, a whole lot of adjustments. i added some vignetting and i turned this not so good shot into what i think is very nice image. i turned a plain old b&w (with good composition) into a sepia image with enhanced detail and contrasts.

 

is this cheating? i define cheating by making adjustments on computer, that could not have been done in the old darkroom days."

 

 

That isn't cheating. 'Cheating' is something else like eg. introducing something in the image that wasn't there although, that is allowed in some cases. Some competitions allow it, others don't. If I had to do that, I would say so.

From what you've explained, you are using a tool which allows you to enhance the look of your photos. Nothing wrong in that.

[pop]

.. you are using a tool which allows you to enhance the look of your photos. Nothing wrong in that.

 

I agree completely. I would also like to point out that in creating your initially lackluster prints, you had no control over a number of important steps, i.e. developing the negatives and producing the prints.

 

A picture is determined by the number of all and every step involved in the making of the picture.

[nhabedi]

Some photographers feel that their work is complete the moment they trip the shutter and want no "fixing" done after the fact. HCB comes to mind here.

 

There's the well-known story about not cropping his images, but I'm pretty sure HCB wasn't opposed to using different gradations or to dodging and burning, at least I never heard of that. I think that's essentially what cheewai_m6 is doing.

 

And, as has been said already, as long as it's OK with you, it's OK, no matter what HCB or others might think about it.

[DriesI]

I wonder if painters question whether they are allowed to use this or that kind of brush.

 

Or if sculptors question whether they should not use this or that kind of tool to chop off stuff.

 

Do composers have a list of banned instruments or chords?

 

Can writers not use certain words or pens or font type?

[cheewai_m6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree completely. I would also like to point out that in creating your initially lackluster prints, you had no control over a number of important steps, i.e. developing the negatives and producing the prints.

 

A picture is determined by the number of all and every step involved in the making of the picture.

 

that's answers the question directly. my intentions are to make the image into what i was trying achieve in the first place.

 

i do not crop. i accept a badly composed shot as exactly that. i won't use photoshop to fix badly composed shot, as i don't make a living out of photography.

 

thanks for all your replies, it answers the question and i am very comfortable in adjusting images now.

[pop]

Do composers have a list of banned instruments or chords?

 

As a matter of fact, this used to apply to western music since the middle age. Some of those rules and laws are still being observed because music which is in violation sounds "weird" to a trained musician.

[andybarton]

There's the well-known story about not cropping his images

 

I'm pretty sure that he cropped the shot of the man jumping across the floating plank. I have seen several prints from the different frames he took at the time. The decisive moment was, apparently, repeatable

[nhabedi]

I'm pretty sure that he cropped the shot of the man jumping across the floating plank.

 

Yes, that has been discussed several times on this forum already. Two of his well-known photos were cropped, the one with the plank being one of them.

 

That there are different versions of this photo is new to me. Do you have a source for this? I have about two dozens of HCB books plus articles, DVDs, etc. I don't think I ever saw different frames. (Different crops, yes, that might be the case.)

[andybarton]

At the exhibition of all his en-prints in Bradford last year, I am pretty sure that there were maybe three or four different versions of that shot. In only one of them is the foot at just the right height above the plank.

[nhabedi]

At the exhibition of all his en-prints in Bradford last year, I am pretty sure that there were maybe three or four different versions of that shot. In only one of them is the foot at just the right height above the plank.

 

I'm surprised that this never (to my knowledge) appeared in print anywhere. The recently released "Scrapbook" for example shows alternatives/variations of several famous HCB photos, but of the "plank" photo they only show different crops.

 

What are "en-prints", BTW?

[Jeff S]

FWIW, Walker Evans and Robert Frank cropped as a normal practice. This is well documented in books, e.g., Walker Evans at Work, and the recent Frank book, Looking In, where the expanded version shows his contact sheets for The Americans.

 

Clearly, both photographers are highly regarded for their body of work, despite the fact that other photographers then and now believe cropping is not photography in its purist sense.

 

Whatever works for you.

 

Jeff

 

PS Virtually everything you describe as your digital PP could have been done in the darkroom...just with a lot of work. And, remember, some sharpening is often needed these days just to get the digital image back to what was recorded in the camera.

[alun]

Cheewai, The question isn't really whether what you descriibe is 'cheating' (I don't think it is). The question -- and only you or your 'audience' can answer this -- is whether your processing makes an interesting and arresting photo better....or merely tinkers with an inherently unsuccessful picture.

 

I think most of us have a tendency to self-deception -- we want to believe that our photographsare more interesting, beautiful and signficant than they sometimes are. Sometimes, the first reaction ('not very good', as you put it) is the one to trust....