Is digital color manipulation cheating?

[KC_Scubabunny]

Only if it is also illegal for Playboy and Cosmo to quit retouching their photos!

Lets face it, the above water world isn't as beautiful as we are led to believe in magazines. Why shouldn't the underwater world be the same.

KC_Scubabunny

 

[clive francis]

I am pretty new to photography/underwater photography so not really sure of filters and the like.

with mine i try to keep it to a minimum so it does not look too false. i do an auto level to take the blue tint off, and some times i have had to sharpen it a little, but other than that i don't mess around with them.

does any one have a plug in for photoshop that is the equivalent of the underwater filter?

tips and hints appreciated!

 

[Rick Murchison]

If you intend to use the picture as evidence then "manipulation" is out. "Enhancement" to clarify something, that is, to reveal reality better, is acceptable but a declaration of that enhancement is required.
If you aren't using it as evidence, it's art - the objective becomes either entertainment or documentation of a memory, and anything you care to do with it to better achieve those goals is just fine.
Rick

 

[Dee]

Rick...that sounds like a lawyers explanation! But it's an excellent one.

 

[clive francis]

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to answer a few simple questions NOT!

So much for this being promoted as being a diver friendly and helpful place to pick up tips and ideas

 

[slichti]

I would say no. I even went to a Nikon School seminar once (even learned a few interesting things I didn't know) where the photographer giving the talk put up a picture exposed for the sky, then one exposed for the ground.

In each picture, the half not exposed for was either overexposed or underexposed (respectively).

The only way to get around that is to use a graduated neutral density filter (they make 1, 2, & 3 stop versions) where the bottom half is clear lexan and the top half is 1, 2, or 3 stops darker.

The photoshop way around this is to take the top half of one and bottom half of the other and put them together. Thus, you have a perfectly exposed picture. According the Nikon School instructor, there is no such thing as "cheating" if it makes your photos better.

As for my opinion on such things, if I'm shooting a bird, I would much rather take the photo without that reed in front of the neck, but, more often than not, time is of the essence and there is no other way around it than digital manipulation...

--Steven.

 

[Geodiver]

I'm sure someone has written one with photoshop, but this is what I did. I color matched one of my filters on my computer and then add the tint either using photoshop or you can manipulate the RGP color levels to add in a little pinkish-red to it, but do it in baby steps or it can look like someone spilled cool-aid on your picture.

Robert

 

[CheeseWhiz]

Just like using a polarizing filter is cheating.

Just like using Ektachrome instead of Kodachrome to go for a certain color balance is cheating.

Just like juggling f-stops to get more or less color saturation is cheating.

Just like....etc etc.

No photograph, no matter the camera, gives a 100% faithful rendition of reality. The best any film or digital camera can do is attempt to create a reasonable likeness. If a digital image needs to be sharpened or the contrast increased or a little magenta added to more closely approximate the way the photographer remembers the reality of that picture, then not manipulating the image is cheating.