photo manipulation..

[eugene]

I am strongly against posting a photo that has been heavily manipulated and still call it a photo.

That being said, digital imaging isn't the toughest of things to archieve around. The following is just one example of a recent photo which I edited. I am writing down the steps (roughly) about what I did.

The original image:
http://www.eugene.photomalaysia.com/lalapix/unedited.jpg

Steps taken:
i. Multiple desaturation (see here (http://www.adobe.com/tips/phs8colorbw/main.html) for more info. I prefer this method than the channels method).
ii. Adjust levels, contrast, curves.
iii. Clone out wire and pole using the adjacent sky.
iv. Clone out unsightly stuff like the window below and rubbish on grounds.
v. Increase canvas size.
vi. Using adjacent ground and such, clone in empty canvas.
vii. Using one of the legs as template, clone in the additional part of the front and back leg.
viii. Touch up minor details.
ix. Apply gaussian blur.
x. Save.

The final image:
http://www.eugene.photomalaysia.com/lalapix/editedmule.jpg

The reason it is in b/w is not because it is easier that way, but just a personal preference. Prehaphs there're shorter steps or other types of manipulation that you all have come across before? Do share if you have. I am sure many here would be interested.

[Sisterlance]

ghgjgjkgkjj

[malek]

:icon_wink

[wasabi]

what shall we call a heavily manipulated P****?:030:

[eugene]

what shall we call a heavily manipulated P****?:030:

I personally call them digital imaging..then again, the line between what is accepted and not is vague and usually drawn by yourself...I am sure DA has a lot to say about this..

[hazeelin]

Kool, Gene!! I don't have the patience to do things like this.

[BurgaFlippinMan]

.............

[khoking]

use the scratch remove tool in Paint Shop Pro, the light post can be removed in less than 10s :D

Add a little bit of colour enhancement later heres mine version :111:

[kkog]

How about "photos" manipulated with traditional darkroom processes e.g. solarization, lith printing, etc.? Are they still considered photos?

Below is a solarized print.

[asmd]

little confused...
is using b/w film (and its variants) manipulation?
is using color film (or its variant to make colours richer ect..) manipulation?
is tacking on a filter manipulation?
is PP film in the darkroom manipulation (as in what kkog mentioned)? what about dodging/burning...
if all of the above and then some... heavily manipulated?
so so confused...

no, manipulation is not the hardest thing. implementing it to an image that is in your minds eye is. its just a tool, with the lack of imagination/creativity.. means little to nothing.

personally.. imho, with certain exceptions, the end justifies the means.
although opinions differ widely.. most folks i know tend to draw the line as to removal/addition from the original image. color/saturation ect are ok.
its the removal/additions thing that draws flak when it comes to the exceptions.
thats where ethics comes in.

btw. i like what u did to the image and the others who posted as well. after all if the original image is not required strictly to show as is PJ style, imho nothing wrong with it at all. am sure the donkey will approve. :)
a picture is worth a thousand words... by removing the distractions ect.. you made it poetry.

regards,
asmd.

[gfish213]

I am strongly against posting a photo that has been heavily manipulated and still call it a photo.

That being said, digital imaging isn't the toughest of things to archieve around. The following is just one example of a recent photo which I edited. I am writing down the steps (roughly) about what I did.

The original image:
http://www.eugene.photomalaysia.com/lalapix/unedited.jpg

Steps taken:
i. Multiple desaturation (see here (http://www.adobe.com/tips/phs8colorbw/main.html) for more info. I prefer this method than the channels method).
ii. Adjust levels, contrast, curves.
iii. Clone out wire and pole using the adjacent sky.
iv. Clone out unsightly stuff like the window below and rubbish on grounds.
v. Increase canvas size.
vi. Using adjacent ground and such, clone in empty canvas.
vii. Using one of the legs as template, clone in the additional part of the front and back leg.
viii. Touch up minor details.
ix. Apply gaussian blur.
x. Save.

The final image:
http://www.eugene.photomalaysia.com/lalapix/editedmule.jpg

The reason it is in b/w is not because it is easier that way, but just a personal preference. Prehaphs there're shorter steps or other types of manipulation that you all have come across before? Do share if you have. I am sure many here would be interested.



i dun care wat it called, pretty should be enought...
just some one no good in photo manipulation say photo manipulation not original...
now a day........almost all picture is manipulate before public.

[yoong]

i dun care wat it called, pretty should be enought...
just some one no good in photo manipulation say photo manipulation not original...
now a day........almost all picture is manipulate before public.

you are seriously missing the point of this thread dude.

[BurgaFlippinMan]

little confused...
is using b/w film (and its variants) manipulation?
is using color film (or its variant to make colours richer ect..) manipulation?
is tacking on a filter manipulation?
is PP film in the darkroom manipulation (as in what kkog mentioned)? what about dodging/burning...
if all of the above and then some... heavily manipulated?
so so confused...
.

add to that choosing a low angle to make a anthill look like a mountain, or using a wide lens to distort reality and make spaces seem bigger. photography itself is manipulation. i wont hesitate to call all those pictures above photos. :P that pole is distracting, so why not remove it if u can?

[Brian]

i dun care wat it called, pretty should be enought...
just some one no good in photo manipulation say photo manipulation not original...
now a day........almost all picture is manipulate before public.
1) The point of the thread has gone way over your head.

2) I'm very good at PS and use it quite often. I've even been trained. But I also think that if one is displaying something as a "photograph" then there shouldn't be anything to it beyond what the public expectation of "photograph" is. If you show a beautiful image to any person on the street and say "this is a photograph" their first expectation is that what they see existed. If you introduce it to them as "art" or "digital art" that expectation is no longer there.

now a day........almost all picture is manipulate before public.Yeah, and it's called "advertising" or "art". Try calling it photojournalism and you'll get fired. Try submitting a heavily PS'd landscape or wildlife photo to NG and you'll get rejected. Why? Because in many outlets the public expectation is still there.

just some one no good in photo manipulation say photo manipulation not original...Wow. That's just as stupid as if I were to say "Just because someone is no good at taking pictures they have to say photo manipulation is always okay." Thankfully, I'm not going to say that to you, though :p

[wasabi]

one is art & design photographer and one is pure photographer... each to his own.....

i also want to know the point of this thread in this subforum.....

//off to work

[asmd]

displaying something as a "photograph" then there shouldn't be anything to it beyond what the public expectation of "photograph" is. If you show a beautiful image to any person on the street and say "this is a photograph" their first expectation is that what they see existed. If you introduce it to them as "art" or "digital art" that expectation is no longer there.



nicely put brian.
btw.. i say this in context to eugenes first post. although what i quoted you saying rings true, still, the manipulation done to the image would imho still justify it as a photograph. i personally dont think having that pole missing or a mars bar wrapper cloned out would make much of a difference unless it was journalistic or meant to capture it as is (for whatever reason).
i suppose you would be right in it being artistic. any and all physical alteration including the removal of blemishes and errant mars bar wrappers would constitute the same.
but then again these are the fine lines that make all the difference.


regards,
asmd.

[BurgaFlippinMan]

nicely put brian.
i personally dont think having that pole missing or a mars bar wrapper cloned out would make much of a difference unless it was journalistic or meant to capture it as is (for whatever reason).


regards,
asmd.

if the pic is about the old fella and his donkey in the country side, the poles and mars bars can go. if the pic is intended to show the old fella and his donkey in an increasing littered/developed countryside, the poles and mars bars can stay although i honestly cannot think up any reason to have the pole sticking out his back.

[gfish213]

hahah..............

i am not good enought even in PS and Photography...

but i think i miss the point....excuess me....
haha

[dragoon]

WOW, Brian, i 101% agree with wat u said. I particularly like the terms used by u, such as "public expectation" and "existed". :icon_supe

[digitalartist]

I am strongly against posting a photo that has been heavily manipulated and still call it a photo.

As far as I am concerned, you can post any image and call it anything you like. You can manipulate it or post it just as it comes out of your camera. And I will fight tooth and nail to defend your right to do that. Aaah....but whether I like it or not is a personal call and no one can dictate what I should or should not like...

I personally call them digital imaging..then again, the line between what is accepted and not is vague and usually drawn by yourself...I am sure DA has a lot to say about this..

Unfortunately I dont have anything to say that I haven't said elsewhere already. This debate about manipulation and not manipulated is as unproductive as the debate about whether Nikon is better than Canon, or film is better than digital. To each his own. Do whatever turns you on...so long as what you do is not immoral or illegal or intended to cheat for profit, and so long as your work does not cause harm.
They are fleas ...... those who cant tell whether they are on the head of a giant or a midget


:069:

[lhfoo]

Wow. That's just as stupid as if I were to say "Just because someone is no good at taking pictures they have to say photo manipulation is always okay."

Good one !!! :wav:

[lhfoo]

This debate about manipulation and not manipulated is as unproductive as the debate about whether Nikon is better than Canon, or film is better than digital.
:069:

Hmmm ... I somehow agree with you on this 100% ... this is another time-wasting thread.:BangHead:

[yoong]

gee, this thread is about sharing techniques, not debating thread. weird.

[eugene]

As far as I am concerned, you can post any image and call it anything you like. You can manipulate it or post it just as it comes out of your camera. And I will fight tooth and nail to defend your right to do that. Aaah....but whether I like it or not is a personal call and no one can dictate what I should or should not like...



Unfortunately I dont have anything to say that I haven't said elsewhere already. This debate about manipulation and not manipulated is as unproductive as the debate about whether Nikon is better than Canon, or film is better than digital. To each his own. Do whatever turns you on...so long as what you do is not immoral or illegal or intended to cheat for profit, and so long as your work does not cause harm.
They are fleas ...... those who cant tell whether they are on the head of a giant or a midget


:069:

Hahahaha..DA! You disappoint me. Was actually hoping you can shed more light upon your view on digital manipulation, one of which I know is very different from mine but not one I disagree nor against upon. Was even more hoping that you can show one of your amazing examples too. :P

Anyway, as some already pointed out, I did not start this thread to go on and on about what is accepted or what it isn't accepted. I started this thread in respond to some who mention that they want to know how to "make a photo pretty". The last line of cause, being relatively subjective given that as burgaman puts it, the litter could still in the very end suit the photo.

[mcko]

.........
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/4832/unedited28vv.jpg

[yoong]

woah. like a painting. i like that mcko.

[pure]

I like mcko's too.
Care to share the technique?

[mcko]

I like mcko's too.
Care to share the technique?

1. Desaturate the whole thing
2. Use history brush to undo and brush over areas to have colour
3. Add levels adjustment layer, tweak it to give super contrasty look
4. Apply layer mask on the levels layer, paint over areas to selectively boost shadows / highlights
5. Gaussian blur the whole thing
6. Use history brush to repaint sharpness back into selective areas
7. Do some colour balance and hue shift to get the unnatural colours

:icon_pall

[SAM LIM]

As for my opinion.....,
Yes, those photo done through computer of course needs to be call
Digital Imaging no matter heavy or light manupulating !!

Original photo not through even a little manupulating only can be call
original photograph....

But, it may be a mistake by some photographer to call both this either
a photo or digital imaging because of grammer or knowledge of spoken/writting......

Remember also those digital photographer either he/she
perform heavy or light manupulating on thier original photo ...they
have another benefit of still own TWO file which one original and
another been manupulating just for fun !

Most of all, it's still needs the main original skills of taking a good
photo from concept, creativities, knowledge of speed/apreature
usage to get a GOOD photo first ...otherwise no point even goes
through imaging manupulating !

So, it doesn't means those use manupulating are not good in taking
original shoots BUT THEY MIGHT be a skillfull person that have been
taking original shoots since longtime ago then just wanna have fun
up-grade following trends on imaging...while own two file of original style
& digital imaging style....!

If my job is National Geographic Photographer...yes, everything MUST
BE ORIGINAL SHOOTS not through manupulating ! Respect Them !
But as for hobbies and love of photography...sometimes we must think
over another matter....following those National Geographic photographer
shoots 100% original or do manupulating for fun, save time, cost...?
They might spent a few days over a subject because of weather & time
then shoots plenty of bullet over that subject to choose for the best
ORIGINAL !
We all not really can have those time...budget....best camera/lens like
them......

Lastly, Yes...I agree ORIGINAL un-manupulating photo only can call
a PHOTO and been manupulating call Digital Imaging .

I still choose my way of shoot Original to keep and created another
one for second option for fun personal style manupulating !
Having two file a PHOTO & a Digital Imaging !!!!! :041:

[pure]

thank you mcko, for sharing...

[Steven Leong]

Wow! Nice one, mcko! But somehow an old man doesn't seem to fit your picture anymore... maybe an old lady? :icon_supe

[sean eng]

I don't really want to talk too much or involve too much bcs others may dislike it. but i cannot help myself to point out some of them: (pls do not hate me):051:


Remember also those digital photographer either he/she
perform heavy or light manupulating on thier original photo ...they
have another benefit of still own TWO file which one original and
another been manupulating just for fun !
for fun? i dont think this is a right word for it. and i hope you did not meant that, did you?
if you have concept and purpose behind the manupulation, then is fine. otherwise you do it just for 'fun' , i dont see a good reason for doing it at all.
correct me if i am wrong. just from my point of view.


Most of all, it's still needs the main original skills of taking a good
photo from concept, creativities, knowledge of speed/apreature
usage to get a GOOD photo first ...otherwise no point even goes
through imaging manupulating !
i have to agree here.


So, it doesn't means those use manupulating are not good in taking
original shoots BUT THEY MIGHT be a skillfull person that have been
taking original shoots since longtime ago then just wanna have fun
up-grade following trends on imaging...while own two file of original style
& digital imaging style....!
again, the 'fun' word...:018:

:040:

[eugene]

Geeeeez....for the love of some higher being up there, if you want to say your view on digital manipulation, do it another in another thread, not here! Honestly, I don't give a sh*t whether you agree or disagree with my view. All I want is share techniques here in THIS thread. :013:


Back to topic. Mcko, love that shot! Thanks for sharing the technique. Will try it out another day on other shots of mine.

[sean eng]

sorry eugene... didn't realise i was reply on wrong thread. it seem all over the place...

[eugene]

nah canony..wasn't implying your reply...was refering generally...

[sean eng]

really cannot help myself and sometime just too lazy to read the same thinggy...if i see one, then i cannot hold my sit.

[sean eng]

excuse me err...Canon!!!

your first post and you started to... you know what i want to say :glare:

[lightning]

Geeeeez....for the love of some higher being up there, if you want to say your view on digital manipulation, do it another in another thread, not here! Honestly, I don't give a sh*t whether you agree or disagree with my view. All I want is share techniques here in THIS thread. :013:


Back to topic. Mcko, love that shot! Thanks for sharing the technique. Will try it out another day on other shots of mine.
Frankly speaking eugene, you are being plain rude here.
Everyone opinions matter since you posted it in public.

Firstly, your original thread is about, let me re-quote from the first posting "I am strongly against posting a photo that has been heavily manipulated and still call it a photo. That being said, digital imaging isn't the toughest of things to archieve around. The following is just one example of a recent photo which I edited. I am writing down the steps (roughly) about what I did. " Therefore, this thread is about you seeking people opinion about digital manipulation rather than share techniques. Quite contrast from your original request.

Secondly, digital manipulation is not easy, what you are showing is tip of the iceberg. Since you are a senior member at photomalaysia (with so many number of posting), it is a quite a unbelievable that you could say something like this. What next, as DA says, nikon better than canon, shooting film is better than shooting digital...???

[hazeelin]

mcko,
i like your version. That funky man is now wearing a silver coloured jacket!

[fatworm]

Geeeeez....for the love of some higher being up there, if you want to say your view on digital manipulation, do it another in another thread, not here! Honestly, I don't give a sh*t whether you agree or disagree with my view. All I want is share techniques here in THIS thread. :013:


Back to topic. Mcko, love that shot! Thanks for sharing the technique. Will try it out another day on other shots of mine.

OPPS! Saya tersalah baca lagi.... malunya..

[ORIGINAL QUOTED BY eugene :I personally call them digital imaging..then again, the line between what is accepted and not is vague and usually drawn by yourself...I am sure DA has a lot to say about this..]

I overlook the last sentence, you were seeking opinion from DA ONLY.

My apology unreservedly( just learned the word from NST) for my wrong post above.
I will try to delete my wrong post above, with a hope that u will forgive me.
And oh, pls dont give me any of your sh*t... i appreciate if u just keep it to yourself.. :)

[ted]

EUGENE Quote:
'I don't give a sh*t whether you agree or disagree with my view.'


Wah ? Such rude human in this Photomalaysia ???:icon_madu :021:

sh*t means '****'.......little boy knows too !
Admin can advise such member's ?....:018:



How about F*CK Y*U ??? GET IT ?:043:

brian, may I be a Mod back? I wanna ban this f*cker :icon_rr:

*kidding about the Mod part, but I suggest 'Canon' be banned, the poster not the camera :)*

[Sisterlance]

Frankly speaking eugene, you are being plain rude here.
Everyone opinions matter since you posted it in public.

Firstly, your original thread is about, let me re-quote from the first posting "I am strongly against posting a photo that has been heavily manipulated and still call it a photo. That being said, digital imaging isn't the toughest of things to archieve around. The following is just one example of a recent photo which I edited. I am writing down the steps (roughly) about what I did. " Therefore, this thread is about you seeking people opinion about digital manipulation rather than share techniques. Quite contrast from your original request.

Secondly, digital manipulation is not easy, what you are showing is tip of the iceberg. Since you are a senior member at photomalaysia (with so many number of posting), it is a quite a unbelievable that you could say something like this. What next, as DA says, nikon better than canon, shooting film is better than shooting digital...???


Eugene: "Prehaphs there're shorter steps or other types of manipulation that you all have come across before? Do share if you have. I am sure many here would be interested."

I thought this thread was about sharing techniques? Those assuming this is a manipulate or not thread must be delusional.

[Sisterlance]

brian, may I be a Mod back? I wanna ban this f*cker :icon_rr:

*kidding about the Mod part, but I suggest 'Canon' be banned, the poster not the camera :)*


U mean ban CANON, SAMMI and JOANNE all at once? careful..

[ted]

U mean ban CANON, SAMMI and JOANNE all at once? careful..

Ooops...

*slink away quietly and grab a phone cam to take a silly picture to share with terukpics....*

[sean eng]

eh? that Canon message deleted? now making like i am talking to my self :glare:
my last message above looks weird lah... where is the Canon again? 1st post started to make the place 'filty', should shot that for kaw kaw... :laugh:

[yoong]

admins already took care of it Canony.
now let's forget bout that. no more OT pls.

[sean eng]

yoong need panadol?

i feel stressful from your avatar. headache?

[eugene]

Frankly speaking eugene, you are being plain rude here.
Everyone opinions matter since you posted it in public.

Firstly, your original thread is about, let me re-quote from the first posting "I am strongly against posting a photo that has been heavily manipulated and still call it a photo. That being said, digital imaging isn't the toughest of things to archieve around. The following is just one example of a recent photo which I edited. I am writing down the steps (roughly) about what I did. " Therefore, this thread is about you seeking people opinion about digital manipulation rather than share techniques. Quite contrast from your original request.

Secondly, digital manipulation is not easy, what you are showing is tip of the iceberg. Since you are a senior member at photomalaysia (with so many number of posting), it is a quite a unbelievable that you could say something like this. What next, as DA says, nikon better than canon, shooting film is better than shooting digital...???


Lightning, I don't mind people requoting me and pointing out flaws etc, but isn't it rude also to not quote the last paragraph? The very one that says what this thread is all about?

Besides, if you had paid attention to the forum generally, there have been many talks about curiosity on how a photo is being manipulated and listing down the steps are just one of the many ways to learn, at least that's what I feel. There are so many things to learn in photography and I doubt even you learn everything within one sitting, do you?

I understand you are mad from my previous posting. My apologies if it offended readers of this thread. It wasn't directed at them but to the few who had decided to turn this thread upside down by starting a word war on digital manipulation. Had I wanted to start one, I wouldn't even bother going through so much trouble listing down the steps etc.

Ah well, I am closing this thread down since it is pointless continuing this thread now, no one would be interested anymore.

There you go! To those "trouble makers", your wish came true. So much for helping other learn.