[DJ1234]

I took a trip to Huang Shan, or "Yellow Mountain," one of China's holy mountains. I only had 2 days to shoot it, including a 4 hour one way bus trip, and sleeping that night. Because of time constraints I didn't get to the base of the mountain until mid afternoon, and by about 4 the sun was already setting. I just barely got there in time to get some pictures and then my light was gone. My pictures turned out lack-luster, if you wanted to be generous.

So, I took the photo into photo shop and played with the curves. I adjusted each channel individually, trying to give the reds a larger tonal range, and then I set the black and white points for blue and green to where the histograms ends were. I also cleaned up some dust spots that I had tried to clean off when I was shooting, but just couldn't get them to leave.

Anyway, my question. I come from a journalistic background where alterations to pictures outside of burning/dodging and contrast is considered unethical. So, in this picture the sky was originally pretty dull. However, the curves change gave it a more purple hue and was generally more appealing. However, it's not what I saw when I shot the picture. The picture may never get published, but if it would, say in a nature magazine where things are supposed to look "pretty" would making curves adjustment be considered ethical or unethical? What do you think?

This is the "after" p/p. I like the pic, but am wondering how "honest" it is to show it if I changed the colors.


Here is the original (or one close enough to it to show you what the colors looked like)

[Toad]

Opinions always vary on this question. I will ask some questions in return:

1. If you had painted this scene instead of using a camera, would it be unethical to tint the sky?

2. If you did this in a darkroom ala Ansel Adams, would that be unethical?

3. Are you trying to manipulate public opinion with this photo or falsify public perception of an event?

4. Is this photo journalism or is it art?

5. Is there a rule that art done in any medium is required to be honest?

6. Does your camera capture everything that your eye sees in every case?

7. Does your camera capture what your mind sees or your perceptions of a scene in every case?

8. What would become of this photograph if it were not enhanced? Would it ever be seen by anyone?

[DJ1234]

very intuitive questions. Thank-you. I realize this is not a black and white issue (no pun intended), and I think your questions help show that. I will ponder them. I'm not a professional photographer, so this issue is not as pressing for me. However, I am new to photoshop and am increasingly awed at how much it can do to change a picture.

[Irma]

I was documenting my comment with some reference, but I refresh to see if someone else had posted something.
After Toad's post I don't think I have anything to say but just many things to think about too...

Very nice picture btw. I like to see the echo of the mountains from fg to bg.

[wulinka]

I think there is not much left to say after Toads remarks.

Anyway, I think you got a beatiful picture!

I am curious as to where you are based, I am not far from Huangshan in Anhui.

Uli

[DJ1234]

Irma and Wulinka,

Thanks for your comments and your encouragement.

Wulinka (Uli), I'm very close to where you live. You would probably recognize the initials AIAI, but you would know me by a different name, as I don't like to give out any information on the internet that could be used in unseeming ways.

[shuttertalk]

Hey DJ, your post processing really enhances the photo, so well done on that.

Regarding "ethics" - good point for discussion. I think it's more clear cut if it's photojournalism or clearly manipulated with intent to misrepresent. Then again, take a look a travel brochure, and I'm sure that most if not all images are 'shopped for enhancement. I'm would imagine too that clients wouldn't mind a wedding photographer giving making them look a bit more flattering, even remove an unwanted element or three through post processing.

In your case though I think it comes down to individual preference. I personally like to manipulate my images as little as possible for a more "natural" look, but then again your preference might be different to mine...


p.s. Toad, great points!

[DJ1234]

Thanks Admin, you bring in some good points too.

D.J.

[BELLERBY]

my 2 cents would be... its a good photo. period. who should care HOW you got it? 10 different cameras may well get 10 different shots back in the same conditions anyway.

Im not a pro either, but I can see that each pro has their own tricks and techniques to bring out their own style. camera/darkroom/photoshop/whatever... When the onlooker looks at the shot, they shouldnt be thinking or caring about how it got to become what it is... and just think about the shot. thats it.


well done.

[Irma]

Reading again your post while having breakfast...

Anyway, my question. I come from a journalistic background where alterations to pictures outside of burning/dodging and contrast is considered unethical.

I think this idea is a little bit outdated anyway.

Pullitzer awards

2005 under Breaking News Photography cathegory.

Winner Associated Press staf.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/breaki...one11.html

2004 same cathegory.

Winner The Dallas Morning News.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/breaki...las14.html

I know that you don't know much about photoshop, but I do. And I can tell that these Pulitzer winners were treated far beyond burning and dodging...

[DJ1234]

Thanks Bellerby, good point. And thanks Irma, I checked out the pictures. Very interesting, though I wish I knew more of their history.

[Wedding Shooter]

I love both images and have definitely been guilty of pp photos so that the colour is different. Toad said it all really.

[Keith Alan]

It really comes down to the customer.

If you are the customer, do whatever you like and enjoy yourself.

If the customer wants a certain 'look' and the only way to get that is extreme processing, clear it with them and proceed.

If the customer is in the news or other legit journalism worlds, stay true to the original and clear edits with your superior.

If the customer is law enforcement, be precise and exact, or more to the point don't edit at all.

Which brings me to my main point.
Do whatever you like but always keep the original file available in case someone wants to buy it.
There are no ethical problems with showing whatever you want to show, and your audience can either enjoy it or complain if you've gone too far for their tastes.
Until you're paid to not photoshop however you please, do as you wish and see what happens.

The unpleasant internet arguments on this subject are usually waged by people who type more than they photograph.

[smarti77]

I just love that Toad 'answered' the question with eight more questions.... but still managed to get the point across.

I think your original image is wonderful. Your edit has simply enhanced the contrast and varied the colour of light with stunning results. Photography has always been a creative process - go with it.

[matthew]

National Geographic move a Pyramid for artistic and layout reasons -- and got burned for it.

I work with product photography, which is generally pretty strict. But even there, the question isn't so much "did it look like that" as "could it have looked like that". In your case, yes, they sky absolutely could have been that colour: some other time, perhaps, just not when you took that photo.

The unpleasant internet arguments on this subject are usually waged by people who type more than they photograph.

I used to have a rule that I couldn't spend more time on-line than I had spent shooting that day. It didn't last.

[guerito]

I like very much what you have done in photoshop - the original is good but the altered version is more pleasing to the eye (well mine at least).

I wouldn't bother with "honesty" in photography (unless you get paid for it, as AlanKeith pointed out). I think that a huge majority of "successful" pictures has been photoshopped heavily. Watch it on youtube, here and here. Some product or fashion pictures are not even photographed but airbrushed, and you simply can't tell, it's more real than life. I found an example here. So, why bother?

[Keith Alan]

The unpleasant internet arguments on this subject are usually waged by people who type more than they photograph.

I used to have a rule that I couldn't spend more time on-line than I had spent shooting that day. It didn't last.

You know what I mean.

[shuttertalk]

One situation I can think of where "honesty" is required is where most photography competitions, clubs, etc. may have rules and guidelines for image submissions...

[Rabid Penguin]

Consider this: As soon as you frame a photograph, you're choosing what you want people to see.

[matthew]

You know what I mean.

Sorry, I wasn't saying that to be smart... but I do have to remember the difference between things I know and things I've been told.

[DJ1234]

Wedding Shooter, Keith, Smarti, Matthew, guerito, admin, Rabid Penguin:

Wow, great responses. I'm really glad you guys took your time to answer my question. Your comments have all been very helpful. Thank-you.

D.J.

[smarti77]

“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” Ansel Adams.

[Don Schaeffer]

I find (as an aspiring artisitc photographer) that I can make an image closer to what I acturally saw by manipulating it. I try to stay true to the spirit of what I saw. Cameras are not human eyes. They are too detail oriented and cant filter content. The color spectrum of the media is not always the same as the eye.