as a part of a larger photo/text package for a magazine article that was due yesterday. Late morning, he calls and says it is "manipulated" and doesnt fit their standards, blah, blah, blah, and he wanted another "real" image to replace it. Well, it is not manipulated beyond the usual color and contrast adjustments. It was taken with the camera, wide angle lens, and flash unit hung around my neck and secured to my chest with duct tape. The remote release cable I held in my mouth and fired by biting down on it. 1/10 second, -2.3 stops of flash compensation, rear-curtain sync.
He wanted to see the "original" chrome, which I explained there wasnt one. I had the original RAW file, which he didnt understand (did I mention he is a "photo editor"???)
I told him that if the image was too "edgy" for their relatively conservative publication, I would replace it - but not because it was manipulted or a composite, because it wasnt. By the end of the day, he relented (maybe he went online and took a crash course on photography). But my entire monday was shot at that point.
Richard, I feel your pain. I get a lot of image requests where digital images are requested but most of the requests don't give you enough information. At a minimum the editor or publisher needs to give the finished image size in inches or pixels and the pixel density. First off I get dpi requests regularly instead of pixels per inch and they almost never specify the finished image size. There is a lot of difference in a 2" X 3" image at 300 ppi and an 8" X 10" image at 300 ppi. And it is nearly impossible to take the first image and upsize it to the second size without image loss. Great shot by the way and a very creative way of doing it. I'm impressed!
Rich - Get used to it. Most photographers do not realize that MANY editors AND publishers are not all that up on digital matters. I know a few of the largest publishers in the US that still don't even have the latest version of Photoshop, some still are back using PS-7, so none of what you tell is surprising.
In the future, if you know that you are dealing with a conservitive publisher with their own sort of standards, then if I were you, I'd send along a caption sheet with the info on how those kind of images were made. You can spend that time writing it out, or you can spend it like you just did.
Posted by Steve Hamley on March 7, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Richard,
I told you to stick with film
Why don't you output the image to a film recorder on 8x10 and tell him you took it with your Deardorff? if he doesn't believe you, you can respond "First too little, now too big. What size camera do you want me to use?"
The image looks fine to me except that the brown pine needle "floor" (I assume they're pine needles) look a tad oversaturated. I understand you can get this kind of color in the right kind of light, but maybe they don't.
Steve
Posted by Leann Greene on March 7, 2006 at 6:06 PM
It was the use of duct tape that pushed it into "manipulated" :-) Awesome image,too bad about the grief.
Posted by Tammy Keever on March 8, 2006 at 10:03 AM
Awesome image. I think this editor knows PS (which is why he questioned it to begin with), but may well not be familiar with what a talented photographer can still pull off IN CAMERA. I know that many digital shooters are manipulating straight images to get effects like this (motion blur) and false DOF/perspective as if using tilt/shifts and selective focussing- but they wouldn't have any idea how to do it IN CAMERA. It's my opinion that it will be more and more difficult to discern between manipulated and straight shots for editors. And frankly, given the tools that we have now, I don't understand why editors would care as long as they get the shot they want. The only place where I see it should, or might matter, is in the case of a competition.
When does manipulation start and stop? I mean, even film shots can be manipulated to a certain degree at the printing stage. Adding blur, texture, contrasts, sharpening, colorizing, etc....airbrushing, teet-whitening, tummy tucking, etc....etc, etc.
PS is a powerful tool, and many people are beginning to use it to emulate what could only be acheived in the past by using special equipment (such as bellows, or just simply knowing how to use the gear).
Posted by Steve Hamley on March 8, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Now that's a scary thought; editors that are so used to PS manipulation that they don't recognize an unmanipulated in-camera shot!
Steve
Posted by Leann Greene on March 8, 2006 at 1:24 PM
What Tammy said makes alot of good points. Shooting digital can make you more suspect even though film is scanned and therfore could manipulated with software also. I had a similar reaction from other people from a long exposure zoom out shot..
Discussion
8 replieshttp://www.richardbernabe.com/11142%20copy.jpg
as a part of a larger photo/text package for a magazine article that was due yesterday. Late morning, he calls and says it is "manipulated" and doesnt fit their standards, blah, blah, blah, and he wanted another "real" image to replace it. Well, it is not manipulated beyond the usual color and contrast adjustments. It was taken with the camera, wide angle lens, and flash unit hung around my neck and secured to my chest with duct tape. The remote release cable I held in my mouth and fired by biting down on it. 1/10 second, -2.3 stops of flash compensation, rear-curtain sync.
He wanted to see the "original" chrome, which I explained there wasnt one. I had the original RAW file, which he didnt understand (did I mention he is a "photo editor"???)
I told him that if the image was too "edgy" for their relatively conservative publication, I would replace it - but not because it was manipulted or a composite, because it wasnt. By the end of the day, he relented (maybe he went online and took a crash course on photography). But my entire monday was shot at that point.
In the future, if you know that you are dealing with a conservitive publisher with their own sort of standards, then if I were you, I'd send along a caption sheet with the info on how those kind of images were made. You can spend that time writing it out, or you can spend it like you just did.
I told you to stick with film
Why don't you output the image to a film recorder on 8x10 and tell him you took it with your Deardorff? if he doesn't believe you, you can respond "First too little, now too big. What size camera do you want me to use?"
The image looks fine to me except that the brown pine needle "floor" (I assume they're pine needles) look a tad oversaturated. I understand you can get this kind of color in the right kind of light, but maybe they don't.
Steve
When does manipulation start and stop? I mean, even film shots can be manipulated to a certain degree at the printing stage. Adding blur, texture, contrasts, sharpening, colorizing, etc....airbrushing, teet-whitening, tummy tucking, etc....etc, etc.
PS is a powerful tool, and many people are beginning to use it to emulate what could only be acheived in the past by using special equipment (such as bellows, or just simply knowing how to use the gear).
Steve
Awesome shot BTW.
Really Paul, CS2 is only 2 upgrades from version 7. I don't think you need to have the latest and greatest to be considered educated in digital.
Truly, I have more respect for people that use the older versions to turn out some amazing results.