Using Photoshop to improve piccies

Jim Chalmers

20/02/2007 at 21:52

Seems to me that this piccie has been doctored a little in a computer. Is this ethical?

Marcus Crompton

20/02/2007 at 21:55

It's dirty it's sinful and it's not fair and it's only been done because HE WANTS THE SOCKS.

It's obvious that this photo has been doctored because there's no press photographer in it (getting a snap of Bonners for the interview).

Matt C

20/02/2007 at 21:58

And surely Bonnington's salopettes pre-date the space-suit by years!! :)

n/a

20/02/2007 at 22:01

Point Of Order.

A while ago, Jon pointed out on the forum that "Bonington" has only one "n" (but that can't be correct - I can see three for starters). Anyway, if it's going to be abbreviated, surely it must be "Boners" :-)

Marcus Crompton

20/02/2007 at 22:07

"Boners" - I'd like to see a photoshop of that!

Or perhaps not...

Jamie @ www.trekkingbritain.com

20/02/2007 at 23:20

Its a great pic BG!

Ninja Marmot

20/02/2007 at 23:24

I love it!
It deserves a sock.
Just the one, mind ;o)

Weird Darren

20/02/2007 at 23:28

I think you will find that piccy was not photoshoped. I know the person who took the piccy and he assures me that the piccy is accurate. And Elvis would never lie about this sort of thing.

Ninja Marmot

20/02/2007 at 23:30

I love the way that he managed to get Princess Anne hiding behind the cairn.

n/a

20/02/2007 at 23:52

I remember the day well. The air was heavy with the aroma of pure magenta and the stench of spent aviation fuel. It was cold, too. So cold, in fact, that the under-dressed CB's cock-ring kept falling off. As you can see, to keep it safe he had to lash it to his waist-belt. SEH, being properly dressed for the conditions, didn't have the same problem - just look at the bulge at the hem of his cag!

jonno

21/02/2007 at 00:38

Cheating.

Ninja Marmot

21/02/2007 at 07:18

Jonno - assuming you're serious:
Have you looked at the pic in question? It, and this thread, are just amusing satire.

If using PS to post-process a RAW image is 'cheating', then so is auto-focus, auto white balance, auto ISO, auto F-stop... (i.e. any point and shoot camera or any 'auto' settings; and the use of any 'night mode', landscape mode' et al must be 'cheating' then).

All post-processing does is to accomplish out-of-camera what any auto settings do in-camera.

It is possible to manipulate images further than this but then you're getting into the realms of digital art which is almost a different genre.

There are also some can't resist that last 'tweak' - the over-processed image is easy to spot; it is often clumsy over-saturation which looks like Sellafield had a bit of fall-out.

Anyway, back to BG's pic. How did you get the Duchess of York to hold that torch?

Jim Chalmers

21/02/2007 at 07:43

< I love it!
It deserves a sock.
Just the one, mind ;o) >

And bearing in mind BG's last post, maybe it should go to 'Boners'.

jonno

21/02/2007 at 09:22

Yeah have seen the satire and think its wonderful, but am reacting to some folk saying that using white balance etc makes boring ,poor photos and that it is better to use Photoshop.
Nothing wrong with either way just think that maybe folk should be more honest about it when they digitally enhance thier snaps.
That is of course if they are entering them for the comp, I guess my reaction is against all the bloody sulking and mines better than yours rubbish off some other threads>

Anyway <was off on one for a mo>, I agree with what you are saying Ninja , you have put my point far more astutely than I ever could.

Ddyrchafedig Gyrrwr (Beic Modur)

21/02/2007 at 11:08

Reminds me of a song from the eighties:-

"It's an illusion - ah ha - it's an illusion - ah ha"

Ddyrchafedig Gyrrwr (Beic Modur)

21/02/2007 at 11:11

"amusing satire"

Really?

- be careful - or someone from another thread might accuse you all of trolling!!

:(

Edited: 21/02/2007 at 11:12

Paddy Dillon

21/02/2007 at 12:32

Here's a cute little experiment you can try with ANY camera... film... digital... whatever.

1. Take a picture of some simple, solid colours... say... red, blue, yellow, green, or whatever you can get hold of.

2. If using film, develop the film. If shooting digital, load it onto your computer.

3. Now... the fun part. Do the colours on your picture match the solid colours you were using? Nope, do they heck as like!

4. The plot thickens. Using anything you can get your hands on... chemicals... programs... black magic... try and get the colours in the picture to match the original colours you used.

5. It's impossible! So where does that leave us???

Parky Again

21/02/2007 at 13:26

you can with a screen calibration programme.
the camera records what it sees whereas the eye doesn't.
some years ago an interesting programme about light and the brain's interpretation of it.
large square painted in different colour squares. a green square in the middle was selected and cancelling lights were shone onto the green square to make it white. when the mini square was viewed by itself it was white, when the camera showed the full picture, it was green again. spooky stuff.

i'm sure my camera digitally degrades the pictures.

n/a

21/02/2007 at 13:47

Slightly off-topic, maybe, but here's something that plays with your eye/brain communications. The page with the coloured spots is good.

Paddy Dillon

21/02/2007 at 16:30

Here's a puzzle...

I once went on a factory visit and was shown the latest fashionable bit of hill-wear.

Now for the science bit...

The guy showing me the gear flipped a series of light switches to show me what the gear looked like in simulated daylight, standard in-store light, and wait for it, Marks & Spencer sales-floor light!

The practical upshot... well... it was like looking at three quite differently coloured items.

So... the puzzle is... which is the 'correct' colour?

Shopping

Most popular

Competitions

Promotions