I guess it's all a matter of opinion. Here's mine: cloning to remove dust is
fine. Minor unsharp mask to restore original apearance is ok too. You may
need to adjust color balance/saturation and/or contrast/brightness to get
the scan to resemble the original. All of this is ok to make the scanned
image look like the original. Then you can reasonable present the image as a
representation of the original photograph.
Of course, if your goal goes beyond representing that image that you
originally captured as it was, then all bets are off. The darkroom has long
been the place of magic. Prints are made to not only represent what the
camera captured, but also what the photographer envisioned. The combined
efforts behind the camera and in the darkroom are used to make a
photographic image. The digital darkroom is as much a part of the final
presentation as the camera in today's world.
So, if you want to share an image that you took with an OM camera and Zuiko
lens and a certain film, and want to share it as a true representation of
the original image, I'd stick to the first case. Simply use the tools to
bring the scanned image into line with the original. I seldom see a raw scan
that is 'right on'. A little work is usually required.
In the world of graphic art, your final output is the result of your vision
and creativity both behind the camera and in the (digital) darkroom. I think
this forum would prefer to know when you go beyond normal corrective
processing. We truly appreciate the ability to capture impressive images
using our mutual cameras of choice, and a variety of film. We share and
learn from each other's experience with the tools. We revel in the
accomplishments. If John Lind's tulip shot was created in Illustrator, or
over doctored in Photoshop, it wouldn't have the same impact to us as
knowing he did it with the expert application of his experience with the
camera, lens, extension tube, film and reading the light.
I trust that Acer's recently posted beauties were only adjusted sufficiently
to reflect the images he captured for presentation in this medium. I
appreciate that, and am all the more impressed and inspired by seeing fellow
members work like this. These opportinities to see the group's collective
works are the main thing that brings me back to the list, despite the volume
of non-photo info I'd rather not see.
So, use your clone tool, use your unsharp mask and adjust your saturation
and brightness as needed. Then share it with the group so we may all
benefit.
Just one guy's thoughts.
--Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J. Mitchell" <DanielMitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:50 PM
Subject: [OM] Digital question; when does touch-up become cheating?
> Just scanned in a bunch of photos from a biking trip, and I'm going over
> them doing a bit of touch-up before putting them up on a web page.
>
> Question: when is it 'cheating' to use image tools to make the image look
> nicer?
>
> I feel precisely zero guilt about a bit of clone tool here and there to
get
> rid of dust specks; that's not really making the picture better, it just
> saves me from my own carelessness (and the trail was pretty dusty,
anyway..)
> Similarly, cropping is fine, because heck, you can do that to prints
easily
> enough as well.
>
> A lot of people here say they use 'unsharp mask' almost by default, so I
> guess that's okay -- what about playing with the levels to improve
contrast
> if I messed the exposure up? (trickier: what about playing with the levels
> to improve contrast if _the sun was behind a cloud_?)
>
>
> (oh, and another scanner-related question -- why does it take 3 times as
> long to scan a matt print as a glossy one? I tried scanning matts on the
> 'glossy' setting, and they looked dreadful, so there's definitely
something
> going on; does anyone know what it is? I'd expect matt would be _easier_
to
> scan because there's less glare, but it seems not..)
>
> -- dan
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|