[peeb]

OK, so I'm an amateur photographer. I took some holiday snaps that are of highly colorful landscapes at mid-day. When I got the photos onto my computer, they look washed out. So I adjusted the color levels to what I remember them being.
But I'm worried. Is this ok? How can I be sure I didn't make them over-vivid? When I look at them, they look great, and right, to me, but very vivid. How can I be sure I didn't commit a terrible sin? Thanks for the advise.

[galenea]

The ethics of photo adjustment really depend on the use of said pictures.

For personal pictures, anything goes. You may want to add notes to the pictures you enhance so that 30 years from now you remember that the leaves weren't REALLY that green and the fish you caught wasn't really that big.

For professional venues, it really depends. Professional pictures of celeb's are almost always retouched to enhance their appearance. I can't really speak for the popular press/news outlets, but I suspect there is at least minor editing of pictures to enhance contrast and clarity.

In other professions, such as engineering, legal or scientific, retouching pictures without complete documentation as to what was done to the source material is not kosher. In fact, use of many of the tools found in popular photo editing applications is frowned upon in these circles.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

[Chuckit]

Like galenea said, it really depends on what you want them for. But unless there's some specific reason why you shouldn't and the adjustment isn't completely wacky, adjusting levels to get good colors is always OK even for hard news photos in a conservatively designed news publication. And for nonjournalistic purposes, photographers tend to adjust the hell out of their photos in every way possible.

[red rocket]

This might be a little bit off‑topic, but if the photographs look so different from what you expected and remember, I'd suggest tweaking your camera's settings until the typical results are closer to what you get with the naked eye. Having to adjust things afterwards shouldn't be the norm, in my opinion, and could lead to a whole lot of time wasted depending on the number of pictures. Just my 2¢.

[Thorzdad]

Question: Do the images look correct in the viewer on the camera? That is, do they match the scene you're looking at? If so, then I'd suggest you calibrate your computer monitor. It's highly likely that your monitor isn't displaying the colors correctly.

[art_director]

Any shot, and I mean ANY shot, used for advertising purposes has color correction and often retouching. This is to be expected.

Editorial imagery can and often is color corrected to allow for reproduction. In recent years editorial shots have also been retouched either by the photographer or by the news outlet. This is done for any number of reasons. For example, a US Marine's body was paraded through the streets in Somalia back in the 90s. A photographer shot the scene and later discovered the dead soldier's penis was hanging out of his fly. That detail was retouched out to make the image more acceptable. Mind you, IMHO, if a dead body is being beaten and paraded through the streets, a visible penis is a minor offense. But that's not for me to decide.

If you're interested, the photographer was interviewed on NPRs Fresh Air last week and discussed this shoot and the use of the image. Use the Google to find the MP3 if interested.

[SpencerLavery]

Just because something feels easy (photoshopping) doesn't mean it's cheating. Photoshop has just become the darkroom of the digital era, so long as you understand what you're doing it shouldn't be a question of ethics at all.

It's a common misconception that analogue photos aren't adjusted and re-touched. Go on an amateur photography course you'll soon learn all about it.

[Gamoe]

peeb, I often feel as you do, and I try to make as few adjustments to photographs as possible, because I see them as historical documents and I wouldn't want to distort the truth. That said, if I really feel strongly about changing something, I'll do so, but leave the original as well.

Video is a little different for me. Still, often I struggle with what to leave in and what to throw out, and I usually don't keep the original video.

[SpencerLavery]

A photograph is intended to capture the frame as you yourself see it, not how the lens sees it. The only time a photograph should be treated as an historical document is if it's being taken for Archiving purposes. All other photographs should be treated as a form of art, and art is certainly not restricted by the bounds of reality.

Bear in mind that the word Photography means painting with light in latin, and very few forms of painting make sure to capture flaws and imperfections.

I say, adjust as much as you like to achieve the results you want. Over time your technique will improve so that your adjustments can be less, but until then do all in your power to make it look how you intend it to look, as it's the result not the process that really matters with photography.

Just my 2.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by SpencerLavery 

Just because something feels easy (photoshopping) doesn't mean it's cheating. Photoshop has just become the darkroom of the digital era, so long as you understand what you're doing it shouldn't be a question of ethics at all.

It's a common misconception that analogue photos aren't adjusted and re-touched. Go on an amateur photography course you'll soon learn all about it.

I think the debates enters the ring when you look for a place to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? There are no hard and fast answers.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Question: Do the images look correct in the viewer on the camera? That is, do they match the scene you're looking at? If so, then I'd suggest you calibrate your computer monitor. It's highly likely that your monitor isn't displaying the colors correctly.

It's a little hard to tell - I'd say they still look washed out - the kind of effect you'd get on film if you take photos at mid-day - what settings would I adjust?

[SpencerLavery]

Originally Posted by art_director 

I think the debates enters the ring when you look for a place to draw the line. What's acceptable and what's not? There are no hard and fast answers.

I agree, there is a line. But the line I myself had measured things by with Photoshop was completely blurred when they released Lightroom. Lightroom makes even the moderately complicated photo-editing tasks in Photoshop, easier than unloading the photos from the camera. The line is being continually blurred and instead of feeling threatened by how it narrows the gap between the amateur and professional, I'm just going to be glad that amateurs have a set of tools that enable them to create better images. How they use the tools will always be up to them but just because a tool is easy to use doesn't mean I'm going to be against it per se. A hammer is awfully easy to use but I couldn't build a house.

[SpencerLavery]

peeb - read a book or go on a course, it sounds like you need to concentrate more on the basics than the ethics, and I don't mean that offensively. Your constant goal should be to capture an image that doesn't need editing.

[peeb]

Well, I'm not a total noob to this, but I have yet to find a way to take photographs in bright sunlight that don't come out washed out. I'll hunt around, but perhaps you can recommend something to remedy this?

[SpencerLavery]

It depends entirely on the camera and the situation. If it's an SLR you could use shorter shutter speeds and higher f-stops. Or you could use a lower ISO. If it's not an SLR is should probably have a setting for "Exposure" that you should be able to turn up and down accordingly. If it's washed out use a lower exposure setting. If it's too dull use a higher exposure setting. Also, we'd need to know if you're shooting digital or film. If film, you could try lower ISO film.

[peeb]

Digital, not an SLR - I'll try what you suggest - thanks!

[Dakarʒ]

I'll also trick the camera by metering it off the brightest object available, then snapping the actual shot I want.

[SpencerLavery]

First thing I'd suggest then is to get a digital SLR. It will give you a lot more control over how the image is captured, and if you shoot in RAW you will be able to control your exposure with a program like Lightroom instead of doing it on the camera (obviously you'll still need to set shutter speed, focus and aperture - or leave on auto), this is a fairly commonplace practice these days and it leaves a much bigger margin for error.

[grilla]

there are those like myself that announce that all of his photographs have been digitally altered to achieve the desired effect of the photographer. check out web.mac.com/gary.conrad.