Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop now Shop now

Photo editing - cheating or not


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 7 May 2010 21:06:26 BDT
m says:
What do people think of the use of photo editing?

I understand that where for instance a photo is underexposed editing it has many benefits.

My concern is that when you take a picture of your kids and then edit it; eg put them in another background, or change the colour of a jumper; you are changing the memory of that moment.

In years to come when I look at their photos they in a sense aren't reality. They are very nice to look at, but they aren't reality.

Any thoughts please?

Posted on 9 Jun 2010 10:07:42 BDT
Sue C says:
Sometimes changing a background or the colour of a kid's jumper is done for fun and can add to the memory of the reality. An example could be a 3yr old who loves the story of the Three Billy Goats Gruff. She would love a pic of her standing by the bridge that the Troll hid under, with the goats in the background, and that composition would recall the reality of a child who loved a particular story.

I think that now we have digital cameras, we have loads of 'reality' photos, but I'm not too sure that 'reality' is all it is cracked up to be. I think its OK to allow ourselves some fun and put some pizazz in our pics.

Posted on 9 Jun 2010 10:09:01 BDT
Sue C says:
Sometimes changing a background or the colour of a kid's jumper is done for fun and can add to the memory of the reality. An example could be a 3yr old who loves the story of the Three Billy Goats Gruff. She would love a pic of her standing by the bridge that the Troll hid under, with the goats in the background, and that composition would recall the reality of a child who loved a particular story.

I think that now we have digital cameras, we have loads of 'reality' photos, but I'm not too sure that 'reality' is all it is cracked up to be. I think its OK to allow ourselves some fun and put some pizazz in our pics.

Posted on 14 Jun 2010 19:37:01 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jun 2010 20:19:01 BDT
Charlie-CJ says:
Occasionally it can be done for fun [i.e. your face on the Mona Lisa or the spoof image of Tony Blair using his cellphone to take a picture of himself smiling with Iraq blowing up behind him (from the Tate Modern's Rude Britannia: British Comic Art exhibition). Normally though I'd just change the part of an image that ruins the photo [although thats mostly verboten in scientific publishing].

As it takes quite while I've only edited a few photos in this way. One was a group portrait and one of a sequence. It my daughters birthday sleepover in a tent where all the kids should have been looking at the camera. In an identical sequence of three at least one of each of the girls was looking away or had their eyes shut. One picture looked great except the front girl had turned her head away and all I got was hair. The previous picture of her was great. So I transfered her head from one into the other and got a perfect picture - and you can't see the join (although it wouldn't fool forensics). All the elements in the picture came from the same time-frame anyway, within a few seconds of each other [so in a sense the photo is a real record of that night].

Likewise when our framed wedding photo became very faded, I scanned a perfect copy from our album and printed out an excellent new vibrant photo for the pictureframe. Whilst it was whizzing through the PC I also edited out the unknown lady peering over the wall and a car with it's brake lights on, both of which looked quite bad in the picture as it was meant to be just me and new missus framed by the open church doors. The new picture looks far better and almost identical - although once printed my wife commented that I had forgotten to remove the photographers shiny aluminium camera case stcking in from the side [I argued I left it in as only God is perfect].

Now I'm approaching my dotage I realize now that a lot of my memories are actually from my photocollection and particularly my video collection, I've forgotten the bits in between [when I saw a pciture of my nans caravan club house I spent many hours inside as a teenager I realised it I didn't remember what the outside looked like at all]. Or as '1066 and all that' put it "History is only what you can remember", well unless you can find an old photo of it.

Posted on 12 Aug 2010 15:35:25 BDT
It's not many people that actually 'change and then delete the original photograph', what is generally changed is a 'copy' of the original picture so that the original is nearly always left as just that, the original picture. In Photoshop Elements, which I use, when altering or amending an original picture from the Organiser, (the softwares digi album) the picture is then automatically saved as a copy and auto attached and placed in with the 'original pic' back within the album. That way of coarse the original is never touched at all. Makes sense to me to have 'the best of both worlds'. Endless copies of the original pic can be created, amended and/or deleted but the original photograph is left well alone.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  4
Total posts:  5
Initial post:  7 May 2010
Latest post:  12 Aug 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 (PC DVD)
Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 (PC DVD) by Adobe Systems Inc. (Windows 7 / Vista / XP)
3.8 out of 5 stars (157)