Exercise 21 - enhancement

Original image



As shot

Selection 1 - full face

Having done very little portraiture, I really enjoyed this exercise and learnt a lot. Adding contrast adjustment alone altered the image significantly, bring it to life and creating an almost 3D effect.



With brightness/contrast adjustment

I'm not sure that I would consider this type of alteration as 'tampering' in the truest sense of the word; I think more along the lines of 'making the most of what you have' - rather like women wearing makeup.

I have subsequently revisited some on my better head shots and given them a make-over. Fascinating stuff!





Selection 2 - eyes only

Quite often I increase the saturation in my photographs, sometimes generally and sometimes a specific colour. I don't recall every having saturated a selection.

Real

Blue 

Saturating eye colour - does this fall into the 'tampering' category? Possibly.

Green

Changing eye colour - does this fall into the 'tampering' category? Almost certainly.

Besides which, it was actually quite disconcerting looking at my husband with the wrong colour eyes.

Having said that, if the colour change was effected on clothing I don't believe this would fall into the category of tampering.

Time for a pertinent aside: Whilst shopping in-store I saw a photograph of a model wearing purple shorts, unable to find said items I asked for assistance. The lady directed me to blue shorts, when I queried the colour she replied that "a lot of people had commented on that". I didn't buy the blue shorts.

I think this is where the boundaries start to blur and a lot of the time I don't think there is an absolute answer - if there were we wouldn't be doing this exercise.

Is tampering wrong?

Yes, if what you are doing is morally wrong - lying to defraud or to cause harm.

No, if you're selling a dream...

Lets face it, we all know that you shouldn't believe anything your see/read in the newspapers or any other form of media for that matter. I could continue on this theme but no doubt it would become very cynical, best just to leave it at: Buyer Beware!

Exercise 20 - improvements

I carried out this improvement exercise for one of the images I selected for my first assignment entitled: Walkers.

I'd taken a few photographs of this street because of the reflections in the rain on the large paving stones. The street alone, regardless of the reflections, didn't make for a 'good' photograph - there was nothing to anchor your view. Adding pedestrians to the image was just a matter of timing and placement - most people walked up the centre of the street rather than on the cobbles.

Having taken a few shots with varying exposures I opted to expose for the reflections, rather than the people, and then make the necessary adjustments later in Photoshop.

Walkers - as shot

The process I followed was exactly as per the exercise in the file. I selected the walkers and feathered the edge.

Selection and refined edge

Once happy with this I added a curves adjustment layer and lightened my selection.

Photoshop toolbar showing layers and adjustments

After this first adjustment, I made a second selection of the walker on the far right and lightened him again. (Not shown here.)

Walkers- final image

A similar effect was achieved using 'fill light' in the raw, however, this lightened everything especially the shadow in front of the walkers and changed the whole feel of the image.

"Consider the limits that you would accept for this to remain an innocent, legitimate adjustment."

Observing the scene, I certainly was not aware of my eyes adjusting between the light from the reflection and the relatively dark clothing of the walkers. In previous exercises we have already determined that my camera has a more limited dynamic range than my (human) eye. Therefore, I would suggest that rather than a dodgy or questionable adjustment this is an appropriate adjustment as it better represents how I saw the scene on the day.

Generally I think lightening/darkening areas within an image, by whatever means - curves or dodging/burning, is acceptable.

Exercise 19 - correction

For this exercise I elected to use the photographs from the OCA website.

Photograph 1 - glass objects



Before

After

I think it would be more accurate to say that I 'sanitised' this image - the slightest speck of dust; the smallest blemish; even some of the imperfections in the glass, everything was removed. There is no doubt that the corrections I made were over-the-top, I would also suggest that the image is far less interesting because of the alteration.

It is very easy to alter somebody else's work - they are not my nick-knacks, it is not my composition and I have no personal investment or connection to the work. This in itself enables a more radical approach to correction. In addition, I don't actually know what is a bit of fluff and what is a genuine flaw in the glass. It is possible to speculate that, with the exception of a couple of very dark specks, all of the 'marks' on the glassware are manufacturing defects or age related and this collection of pieces was assembled for this photograph because they were interesting.

Does it bother me, removing dust specks from my image? Yes, but more so because I have dust on my sensor rather than any qualms relating to image tampering. In this particular instance, if it were not for this exercise in correction, I don't think I would have removed any of the 'specks' from the image - possibly the very tiny one on the white background just above the amber glass.

Photograph 2 - lens flare

Before

After

In this particular photograph the lens flare looks odd - two little hexagonals on the edge of frame. The position of the flare makes it easy to remove, as long as you don't over work the correction it is unlikely to be noticed. The more I work with Photoshop the more I realise "less is more".

How justifiable was this exercise? If this was my image, I would have tried to take the shot without flare; failing that, I would have tried to direct the flare across the shot and make it part of the image. 'Justifiable' is an interesting word and has quite strong moral overtones - is it permissible, fit and proper? I would say yes it is OK to do it because it dos not change the meaning or the content of the image. However, I'm not sure its justifiable.

This exercise was interesting because I have never used the colour blending mode to assist in removing flare.

Exercise 18 - colours into tones 2

I opted for number 2 - lightening the complexion without significantly altering the tones of the rest of the image.

Original version of the image

The 'default' version of the image was created using 'Greyscale' - whilst quite a raw conversion I think it works quite well because is simplifies the background.

Greyscale conversion

For this next conversion I added a Black & White Adjustment Layer and then very slightly increased the red slider - by 10 points.
Initially, I used the magic wand to select just his face and hair and then added a Curves Layer and lightened the selection. This conversion was acceptable, but no better than the greyscale version above - and considering the additional work involved, not really worth the effort.

Complexion lightened using the red slider

Lightening his face in this way certainly improves/lifts this image. My only comment would be that his forehead now blends into the pillar behind, whereas there is a clear distinction in the 'Greyscale' conversion.

Currently in the Pdog19 library - March

Advanced Digital Black & White Photography by John Beardsworth
(2007, Ilex Press Ltd)

I purchased this book 4 years ago when I started an image manipulation course at the local college. By section 3 of the first chapter I was completely out of my depth. So I put it on the shelf in the vain hope that one day I might pick it up and understand it. Two weekends ago I dug it out and read it - its actually a very good book.

The book has a natural flow and this makes it very easy to read - it starts with destructive conversion techniques, rapidly moves onto non-destructive techniques, and includes numerous creative effects. The images used are varied so you get a good feel for how b&w works, plus they're a good size so you can actually see what happening. Page layout is intuitive: screenshot > instruction > image with caption > screenshot > updated image with caption > etc, etc. Normally a couple of methods are documented for each process, plus the individual instructions are given in long hand and as short cuts. On top of this, the book also has loads of "a good little trick is to...".

For £19.99 it is superb value for money.