Adobe Photoshop - no more false ads?

[invincible569]

What do you guys think about the new Photoshop they are about to release? This new version is suppose to let you know if an image has been photoshoped or not. Does this mean that those who sell SPS need to work on their camera taking skills?

 

[Kip]

what if you use it to crop and resize.... gonna get fingered as coloring up pics?

 

[MammothReefer]

Ha thats just silly. Photos need to be adjusted for white balance, cropping, ect.. I think people put to much stock in the "photoshopped blame game"

 

[250G]

I think the majority of us need to work on reef photo skillz! I know I am persoanally taking my time learning to use my new Canon S3, mainly because my old Olympus 765 (4MP) allows me to point and shoot in my tank as it has a manual whilte balance. The Olympus allows me to go straight from the camera to the web, where as I can not do that yet with the S3. I would rather learn to use the camera than learn to use photoshop personally.

At the same time those who are inclined to embelish a little will not be effected by this as there must be other software out there if that is what you are into.

 

[nwrogers]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9436539#post9436539 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MammothReefer
Ha thats just silly. Photos need to be adjusted for white balance, cropping, ect.. I think people put to much stock in the "photoshopped blame game"

That it totally true! Also I have noticed they only people who complain about Photoshop are those who don’t have it or don’t know how to use it. There is nothing wrong with using Photoshop with adjust the white balance or levels on a photo. There is no difference between using Photoshop to adjust those levels or using the settings on a camera to adjust them before taking the photo. All that matters is that the end product looks like the thing that has been photographed. Using the camera’s settings or Photoshop to make it look better than it does in person is dishonest and I don’t agree with it but I don’t think it is fair just to say if someone used Photoshop to edit a photo that they are necessarily misleading anyone or need to work on their photo taking skills.

 

[Paladin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9436674#post9436674 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by nwrogers
There is no difference between using Photoshop to adjust those levels or using the settings on a camera to adjust them before taking the photo.

I agree. Some people may use Photoshop to correct their pictures due to their lower-end camera or picture-taking skills, while others will not need Photoshop to compensate since they are more skilled at photography, using the camera's features and adjustments to capture the best image. In the end, both methods can produce similar looking pictures. Been waiting for CS3 to come out--a few more weeks!

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9436750#post9436750 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paladin
I agree. Some people may use Photoshop to correct their pictures due to their lower-end camera or picture-taking skills, while others will not need Photoshop to compensate since they are more skilled at photography, using the camera's features and adjustments to capture the best image. In the end, both methods can produce similar looking pictures.

That's really a misconception. The better the photographer (and the higher end the gear) the more likely that they'll be spending time in Photoshop. It's not about compensating. It's about control. Ansel Adams often spent weeks perfecting images in the darkroom. That's really where he consider the "art" of photography to be.

While it's certainly true that some folks use the Photoshop to deceive automatically assuming that any picture that's been edited is evil is dead wrong.

 

[invincible569]

This may not work because I use ACDsee to view pics.. but it also has features on it where you can auto contrast, auto color, etc and it works well. That means the photoshop stamp wont be on the pic and therefore Photoshop may not pick it up.

 

[Unarce]

Question:

I use the Microsoft Photo Editer that my laptop came with. If I took a raw pic, cropped it, and than clicked auto balance, would that be considered a deceiving photoshop?

TIA

 

[Neptune777]

Come on fellas.....you can't deny that some people use photo editors to make their corals look better than reality. People just need to be in tune to look for clues....like what's happening in the background or with items near the coral of interest.

 

[MammothReefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9436811#post9436811 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
That's really a misconception. The better the photographer (and the higher end the gear) the more likely that they'll be spending time in Photoshop. It's not about compensating. It's about control. Ansel Adams often spent weeks perfecting images in the darkroom. That's really where he consider the "art" of photography to be.

While it's certainly true that some folks use the Photoshop to deceive automatically assuming that any picture that's been edited is evil is dead wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself.. Part of my job includes photography I'm using pro-gear, and you better believe I spend a good amount of time in photoshop. To think that photoshop is a crutch for bad photography is like saying a paint brush is a crutch for a bad painter. Photoshop is a tool, nothing more.

 

[JB NY]

Using photoshop for good pictures is a must in most cases. The problems lie with people using it to enhance parts of the picture above and beyond what is looks like in real life, in order to deceive people into thinking that is what it really looks like in real life.

I've used it many times to get my picture to look more true to their normal colors and contrast then I was able to get from the camera alone.

 

[hobogato]

i have actually used photoediting to make the corals look more realistic by taking out some of the color. sometimes pics look better than real life because of camera settings and the way the camera picks up reflection from actinic lighting. i have used autocorrect on white ballance to make the coral a little less striking because it just didnt look realistic.

 

[SptfireXIV]

IMO this would only worsen the current situation. Most people can't even tell when a picture is photoshopped. Now they'll see something that tells them it is and they'll cry foul no matter what. This is not a solution.

 

[MammothReefer]

exactly..

Photoshoped.. or untouched (minus border of course).. I ain't tellin..

http://www.pbase.com/brahm/image/34806401

http://www.pbase.com/brahm/image/34806023

http://www.pbase.com/brahm/image/36548200

 

[turtlespd]

why not just use the old program instead of the new?

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9437006#post9437006 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JB NY
Using photoshop for good pictures is a must in most cases. The problems lie with people using it to enhance parts of the picture above and beyond what is looks like in real life, in order to deceive people into thinking that is what it really looks like in real life.

I've used it many times to get my picture to look more true to their normal colors and contrast then I was able to get from the camera alone.

Couldn't agree more.

`Photoshopping' is not the issue. Professionals who work with color graphics/raster images use it all the time.
I did for many years, most of every single day. To make things match reality with imperfect cameras/etc [or nearly perfect] it's a must. It's the digital darkroom, and professional results are rarely found without it [esp with cropping/resizing/etcetc].

Altering a photo to enhance above and beyond what exists in reality is the problem.

The problem is the use of photoshop to do something other than have the image perfectly reflect reality.

It's like saying because some people lie, no one should speak.
The problem isn't the tool, it's the tool using it.

 

[kokob007]

Almost all the vendors online enhance their images with photoshop or other editing program, if they know how to use photoshop, those that dont you can tell 100% that they have enhanced the colors more then it actually is. while we dont really care how bright the frog fish color is but we do when it comes to SPS.

 

[rsteagall]

Re: Adobe Photoshop - no more false ads?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9436402#post9436402 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by invincible569
What do you guys think about the new Photoshop they are about to release? This new version is suppose to let you know if an image has been photoshoped or not. Does this mean that those who sell SPS need to work on their camera taking skills?

What you're speaking of is EXIF data or extended EXIF data Its pretty much already being done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXIF

Correct?

-Ryan

 

[invincible569]

Re: Re: Adobe Photoshop - no more false ads?

Re: Re: Adobe Photoshop - no more false ads?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9439527#post9439527 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rsteagall
What you're speaking of is EXIF data or extended EXIF data Its pretty much already being done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXIF

Correct?

-Ryan

Thats pretty much on target, but looks like that info only shows the camera specs and not the program used to alter a picture after its been taken.