www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I only have the talent to saturate & sharpen photos to a bog standard, but, and I know this has been discussed in the past, should I do so
I've agonized over this for ages, I can't decide whether the images are improved or not. I would love to know how many people out there do, or do not do it.
Also, is it easy for the experienced eye to see such changes, and if so any guide as to how ???..... see below a before & after example, ... opinions sought ... my shots are currently Lumix DMC - FZ50, as I like the ability to change the screen angle. generally macro/ auto setting with a 2x lens attached. I will endeavour to join the SLR religion eventually

Before....



& after...

Hi Paul,

I guess the real title of your post should be "to adjust images or not to adjust" since it's not confined to Photoshop

My personal view is that it sometimes helps to make small adjustments in order to get the photo closer to what I saw. This can be for a variety of reasons - exposure, tint, etc. etc. But the point is that any adjustment should be a subtle adjustment.

What I personally don't like are images that digitally manipulated that cause the original picture to change in some fundamental manner (e.g. 2 photos combined, wing damage repaired etc.).

Cheers,

- Pete

I think manipulation is fine but it is very easy to go too far (I am guilty of this all too often!)

Martin.

Its probably true that if you have to do more than crop and sharpen, then the image isn't a good one anyway. But on occasion I have taken a duff image and gone crazy in paint shop, and the results have been quite good, but when you then get the " wow what a great shot " you do feel a bit of a fraud.

Your adjustments look fine to me Paul, definatley improved the image.

Gruditch

Hi Paul...

In my opinion, one should only make the changes in photoshop (or other brands, Pete!) that you could make in a darkroom with film. I think this introduces a challenge to the digital photographer that makes them concentrate more when composing and executing the original image, which will in the long run improve their photography.

With regards your image here... I think the sharpening has certainly made the butterfly look more crisp... but you've introduced a lot of noise/grain in doing so (particularly in dark sections of the background), so you've compromised other aspects of the image. Still this is a small nit and overall it works!!

Regards, Chris

Thanks, but looking again. I think this particular one I way overdid!!!!!. So a bit of sharpening is OK - I will need to find "subtle", noy my strong point! ... What about saturation, when given an option???

Here's my version of your image, this could be a new comp, make the best of this picture

Gruditch

Wow, that's a lot better than I managed, seems less grainy altogether, well done... I might send you all mine to process!! I'd like to know out of interest what software you used?

Hi Paul, I just use Paint Shop Pro 9

Gruditch

It all hinges on what you want from an image, with wildlife/butterfly shots most of us, I guess want a true and accurate representation of the subject, so the key to manipulation in any software has to be knowing when to stop.
Dont forget if we have used a copy or duplicate image,we can always go back and start again, a small adjustment can also be added to, whereas an over adjustment usually means the image is ruined.
One of the most common and obvious faults is oversharpening or poor sharpening technique resulting in halos/jpg artifacts.
I'm afraid Pauls first photoshopped image was IMO oversharpened.

In my opinion, one should only make the changes in photoshop (or other brands, Pete!) that you could make in a darkroom with film.

I disagree with this statement, why stick to rules/restrictions of a bygone system, when with sensible use, we have so much more we can do with digital.

Its probably true that if you have to do more than crop and sharpen, then the image isn't a good one anyway

I disagree with this as well, there are many things other than crop and sharpen, to help an image be more pleasing to the eye, Levels, curves, WB, hue and sat, contast, colour balance, and several other techniques all have a part to play, with carful use.
I'll go as far as to say, all images even ones that look superb to start with need some form of tweaking in computer software, the trick is recognising what is needed and then how to do it.

This doesnt let us off the hook though, we should still be practising good camera technique and getting as much right as possible in camera.

I think Paul's first image (unphotoshopped) is good enough.

On April 1st I have a habit of publishing 'edited' photos on my year page and always feel guilty when excited surfers write in to comment!

Here's a fictitious Issoria lathonia form inanis (I invented that name) from 1st April 2006...



... and here a small tortoiseshell ab. ichneusoides from 1st April 2007:



I also made quite a convincing Erebia claudina out of an epiphron photo once, but no one would believe that was taken on April 1st!

You can't believe anything you see on the web these days.

Guy

Surely, if the intention is to create something aesthetically pleasing to hang on the wall or display on your computer, then there should be no limits to the amount of manipulation that could/should be carried out on an image.
If repairing a wing, removing a grass stem, or even changing the colours of backgrounds etc. creates a more pleasing image, then so be it – artistic license is, and should be, the order of the day.
As long as there is no intention to deceive, (for any longer than a day on 01/04) then go for it.

If however, the image is for recording/scientific purposes, then the only manipulation permissible should be that that will make it seem as true to life as possible.

Hamearis

"If repairing a wing, removing a grass stem, or even changing the colours of backgrounds etc. creates a more pleasing image, then so be it – artistic license is, and should be, the order of the day."

I don't disagree... I just wouldn't be as happy with the image.

Consider this: You obtain two identical images... one from hours spent in the field waiting for the perfect moment and one from hours spent in front of the computer, manipulating one or a number of unsatisfactory images. Which would you be happiest with?

There is no difference in the output, the images are identical, so one image cannot be better than the other... but I would be much happier with the unedited one. For me, photography is as much about the experience before the photo is taken. For other people, it is about the experience after the photo is taken. No right or wrong... just preference.

Regards, Chris

I actually love sitting in front of my pc messing around with my pictures! But if you have a rubbish shot, it’s extremely hard to bring it back from the dead, so I think the main point is to get it right in the first place.

One day I fear that editing technology will be so good, that actually taking a good picture in the first place won’t even matter. I personally hope that never happens, because then surely what would be the point of trying to be a good photographer.

That said I like to do stuff like this!!

That's beautiful, Lisa, and clever! I don't object to stuff like that because it's clearly artistic... you've removed the final image completely away from the original one and gained not lost anything. I'd like to see more pictures like that in the monthly competitions.

What I can't bring myself to do, is all the sneaky changes, like removing grass-stems, stacking images, etc

Perhaps we need 2 competitions - one for photography, and the other for image manipulation

There - that should set the cat among the pigeons

Cheers,

- Pete

To me a bit of photoshop to improve photos is a good thing. When it comes to butterflies I think if you can see that a photo has obviously been sharpened/tinted etc then it instantly loses its appeal. It is very easy to over do it with photoshop and I consider good digital processing to be a skill like it always has been with film. Lisa, you'll be interested to see this photo I recently found online - it's a natural version of what you tried with PS.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ian-s/359800449/

Alexander

Here's one straight from the camera...honest

Martin and Guinevere, what programmes do you use to make these pictures? Is this Photoshop? I ask because I only have a very basic programme and I can't possibly cut out a butterfly like this - I have to go round the outline with a mouse. Your images are brilliant and I'd love to be able to do something of that quality.

Guy