Hmm, another photoshop job? - Page 2

bigbassloyd · 05-31-2009, 07:12 AM

To each his own on removing items from their photos I guess.

It's a pride thing for me. If I can't get a decent shot without having to remove items, then that is just how it is. Anyone remember my rejection photo with the beautiful waterfall? I bet it would be quite easy to magically defoliate a spot or two. Instead, I have to get creative to work around the locations flaw. When I achieve that, it will mean so much more to me.

I can assure you that anyone who comes to a spot I've shot from, will not find obstructions that were devoid from my photos.

I want to be a photographer, not an editor.

Loyd L.

TheRoadForeman · 05-31-2009, 03:10 PM

Damn, this gets good!

trainboysd40 · 05-31-2009, 03:51 PM

My personal view on photoshopping in terms of alterations like this, as it pertains to railpictures:
This site is used frequently by people looking for information on units, whether it be what they looked like in the past or what they look like now, and it is a disservice to mislead them by altering an engine.
If there's a branch or two in the way of a great shot, it gets removed. It's just an imperfection in the way of a good photo, and has no real bearing on the realism of the shot. I scoff at anyone who says otherwise. Same goes for power lines, although the poles themselves are a judgment call.

Andrew Blaszczyk (2) · 05-31-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainboysd40

If there's a branch or two in the way of a great shot, it gets removed. It's just an imperfection in the way of a good photo, and has no real bearing on the realism of the shot. I scoff at anyone who says otherwise.

I agree 100%. A branch can be removed in real life with some extra effort but sometimes it is just out of reach or we don't have enough time to take care of it or sometimes the wind blows it into the shot. I feel like it is something that is not perminent and will not effect someone's decision to go to a location or not.

Quote:

Same goes for power lines, although the poles themselves are a judgment call.

I disagree. Like others have said, people use photos to scout for a trip and if they don't see wires in a shot than that leads them to believe they are not there. Some people are better than others and ridding a shot of these and the lines could hang down pretty far down in a shot or maybe right across where the train will be. Of course, if they are cutting through the corner of the frame and its not effecting the subject or location then I think its fine.

Joe the Photog · 05-31-2009, 04:39 PM

I guess in truth branches don't bother me personally either way. I can't recall ever taking a photo and thinking it was lackng in some way because of a branch. I also can't remember not taking a photo due to a branch or even moving a branch physically out of the way. I suppose it could be a judgement call; in some cases, a branch might help a shot.

As for power poles and power lines, I kinda like them. No, really, I do. I think they can add to a scene if you shoot around them. Also, like others mention, if I don't see power lines/poles in a shot, then I go to that location, I could get bummed. (Well, maybe not me, since I don't mind poles.)

There's an obvious difference shooting for Railpictures and shooting model portfolios, weddings and candid shots. RP sides more on the photojournalist side of photography and what you see needs to be what you shoot with a few minor variations. Adding class lights to a unit that no longer has them, especially without ever even mentioning it, or adding a train to a shot to "make up a meet" when there was no meet that day -- and this has been done on this web site long before the shot this week came into question -- falls outside the realm of photojournalism and given the right news editor and the right story, could get one suddenly looking for a new job if they had been done for a newspaper and not a web site.

Red Granite · 05-31-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I want to be a photographer, not an editor.

Admirable goal but might be a little misguided. This is the same refrain that is heard across the photography world - "I get it right in the camera" versus "I adjust in PS". I think all photographers are editors, in a way. It all depends on whether you're "editing" at the time of shutter release or in PS.

Long before computers and PS, photographers processed their shots in a darkroom and you can bet with your life that many photos were "massaged" in said darkroom, just as they are today. What occurred back then is no different today other than the technology involved.

HOWEVER, I do think that many amateurs today use PS to "fix" their mistakes. There is a fine line between correct post-processing and using PS as a crutch.

To me, the ONLY time a shot cannot be altered (or cleaned-up) are those taken by PJ's. That is an issue of integrity.

On this site, a little tweaking in PS isn't the end of the world.

bigbassloyd · 05-31-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Granite

Admirable goal but might be a little misguided. This is the same refrain that is heard across the photography world - "I get it right in the camera" versus "I adjust in PS". I think all photographers are editors, in a way. It all depends on whether you're "editing" at the time of shutter release or in PS.

Long before computers and PS, photographers processed their shots in a darkroom and you can bet with your life that many photos were "massaged" in said darkroom, just as they are today. What occurred back then is no different today other than the technology involved.

HOWEVER, I do think that many amateurs today use PS to "fix" their mistakes. There is a fine line between correct post-processing and using PS as a crutch.

To me, the ONLY time a shot cannot be altered (or cleaned-up) are those taken by PJ's. That is an issue of integrity.

On this site, a little tweaking in PS isn't the end of the world.

It's certainly ok (and generally required with digital) to do some basic post processing work. Any good photographer has to be decent in that respect. The editor comment was intended to reference those that add / subtract scenery, do incorrectly edited multiple exposure blendings, and other stuff that allows the composition to leave the realm of reality.

Sorry for the confusion! In addition to photography, I suck with the English language..

Loyd L.

Joe the Photog · 05-31-2009, 05:00 PM

One place I have to have a battle of wits with power lines and poles is the L&C offices in Lancaster, SC --

PhotoID:
Photograph ©

I've seen a picture which I think was commissioned by the railroad of this building without any lines or poles and it just doesn't look right. It's not real. I'm not a big fan of how prevalengt they are, but they're there and I work around them as best I can. My only other choice would be not to shoot there at all.

JimThias · 05-31-2009, 05:37 PM

Wow, this thread is starting to sound like a "Cloners Anonymous" meeting.

Red Granite · 05-31-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

It's certainly ok (and generally required with digital) to do some basic post processing work. Any good photographer has to be decent in that respect. The editor comment was intended to reference those that add / subtract scenery, do incorrectly edited multiple exposure blendings, and other stuff that allows the composition to leave the realm of reality.

Sorry for the confusion! In addition to photography, I suck with the English language..

Loyd L.

No worries - I didn't mean to come across harshly; think of it as sitting in a bar, having a few beers, while discussing photography.

We all were newbies at one time or another. Some of us learned in the film era, some in today's digital era. I think today's newbie do have it easier with the instant feedback (and gratification) that digital offers. I started shooting in 1981 using Agfa film. Trial-and-error and learning-as-you-went was a bit more expensive; then you had to wait on the lab, unless you handled your own darkroom work.

Different times between then and now.

JimThias · 05-31-2009, 05:48 PM

Red Granite, welcome to the forum. Now, would you please tell us who you are? You're making too much sense for a "newbie" to RP.

Chase55671 · 05-31-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

Red Granite, welcome to the forum. Now, would you please tell us who you are? You're making too much sense for a "newbie" to RP.

Right there with you, Jim. Welcome to the forum. You seem to be a rather intelligent gentlemen.

Chase

Freericks · 05-31-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

Red Granite, welcome to the forum. Now, would you please tell us who you are? You're making too much sense for a "newbie" to RP.

I agreee - great - thoughtful posts, Red Granite... now let us see your photography by telling us who you are.

odie · 06-01-2009, 12:53 AM

I might be a little late to the game, but I am the one that took the first photo without the class lights. I did not get to see the other photo before it was yanked though.

Chase55671 · 06-01-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by odie

I might be a little late to the game, but I am the one that took the first photo without the class lights. I did not get to see the other photo before it was yanked though.

Quite an impressive photo! Glad you were able to take advantage of the photo shoot!

Chase

sd9 · 06-01-2009, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman

Good one!

I make all of my income from photography, photographing weddings, and other portrait sessions include prom, engagement, seniors, etc etc. Using photoshop to "alter" an image to make the client happy (thats why they come to you in the first place) has become such a regular routine that I do the same kind of stuff to everything else I do except for when I do assignments for the local newspaper.

.

So if you did a wedding shoot, and they get divorced, would you take out the groom and add a new one, that would save a lot of time and money, "alter" an image to make the client happy (thats why they come to you in the first place) that's a new one on me, I never knew anybody that selected a photographer because they were good at ALTERING images,

Joe the Photog · 06-01-2009, 03:49 AM

I know Joey can speak for himself. In fact, I think if you reread what he said, he said they come to you to be happy with the work, not so you can alter a photograph.

Joey Bowman · 06-01-2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

I know Joey can speak for himself. In fact, I think if you reread what he said, he said they come to you to be happy with the work, not so you can alter a photograph.

You nailed it Joe, Either he has a skewed out take on what I wrote, or my English/Grammar/Writting skills still suck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9

So if you did a wedding shoot, and they get divorced, would you take out the groom and add a new one, that would save a lot of time and money, "alter" an image to make the client happy (thats why they come to you in the first place) that's a new one on me, I never knew anybody that selected a photographer because they were good at ALTERING images,

As Joe said before I had a chance to, what I meant by my statement is that when a client comes to the photographer to capture a photo of them, they want to look as good as possible. Not just a bride but anyone that has their photograph taken wants to look good in it. No body says "hey, lets see how fat and nasty I can look in this photo".

Joey Bowman · 06-01-2009, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9

I never knew anybody that selected a photographer because they were good at ALTERING images,

Actually, one of the worlds most famous photographers is famous because of how she edits her photos. Anne Geddes.

Joe the Photog · 06-01-2009, 07:32 AM

PhotoID: 285836
Photograph © Philip Banks

Someone evil could try to leave a comment: "Nice shot. Just too bad they didn't have the class lights on."

Chase55671 · 06-01-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Someone evil could try to leave a comment: "Nice shot. Just too bad they didn't have the class lights on."

Chase

Red Granite · 06-01-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

Red Granite, welcome to the forum. Now, would you please tell us who you are? You're making too much sense for a "newbie" to RP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671

Right there with you, Jim. Welcome to the forum. You seem to be a rather intelligent gentlemen.

Chase

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

I agreee - great - thoughtful posts, Red Granite... now let us see your photography by telling us who you are.

Thanks for the kind words. I don't do much railroad photography anymore but occasionally visit this site to see what folks are shooting. My railroad shots can be found here.

Again, thanks.

sd9 · 06-01-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman

You nailed it Joe, Either he has a skewed out take on what I wrote, or my English/Grammar/Writting skills still suck.

I'ts called a quote, you wrote, not I, so I didn't SKEWED you

Dennis A. Livesey · 06-01-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Someone evil could try to leave a comment: "Nice shot. Just too bad they didn't have the class lights on."

How 'bout:

"Good shot, even if you do say so yourself!"

JimThias · 06-01-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman

...or my English/Grammar/Writting skills still suck.

Well, now that you mention it...

Joey, I've got to give you credit for being a wedding phtographer. I think that's probably one of the most stressful jobs a photographer can have. You mess up wedding photos and piss off the bride on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and you're in the doghouse. I hope you haven't had any experiences like that, though.