How Much Image Manipulation?

Reflecting back on the thread here about Tree Shadows and its final drift toward perhaps using computer enhancement of an indoor image as a means of making it look more like the scene had been shot out-of-doors, I'm wondering just how much is acceptable to other hobbyists, especially when the work appears in say the national magazines? Certainly, we all enjoy seeing the photographic efforts of other modelers and revel in articles providing layout tours. It's both interesting and helpful to ourselves to see what others have actually accomplished and garner some ideas. But when does the increasing and extensive use of Photoshop techniques to "improve" the pictures accompanying an article become counter productive and make the layout simply illusionary or fantasy?

About a year and a half ago, Gary Hoover had an layout tour article in Model Railroader in which the images had been heavily Photoshopped. In the article he claimed only backgrounds had been added. However, going by the trackplan provided and careful inspection of the photos, it was obvious that major scenery elements had been swapped around and certain features added where none existed. This was the first example of this sort of thing I've definitely come across

Odds are that the trend toward significantly Photoshopping all images will become commonplace. Authors always wish their layouts to look as good as possible in print. Now I agree that there's certainly nothing wrong with tweaking an image for better presentation. But what happens when what you see of layouts in the magazines (or on-line) becomes more fantasy than reality. Where, or even should there be, a line drawn somewhere? I'm wondering how others may feel about this?

NYW&B

 

I don't feel I am in a position to comment on what is ethicaly acceptable in a paid for trade journal. On one hand I would prefer that they on adjust brightness / contrast and gama on the other - if further manipulation leads to a greater understanding then over all I really don't care.

You can be sure most of my images that I post anywhere are cropped and may have a bit of brightness or contrast adjustment. If I were to do more than that I would make a note of it.

 

Because I have multiple decks, I usually have to Photoshop the backgrounds. I just don't have the height between decks. Usually that consists of just extending the heights.

I also take out the annoying little nits--the omnipresent white spots, the specks of ballast on the tracks, but nothing major. If a backdrop has seams, and some of mine do, I'll take them out also. Because I have difficulty lighting some scenes, I'll take out any hotspots caused by the lighting. Sometimes I just can't get enough light into a scene without a hotspot or two.

Of course I adjust the dynamic range--the contrast and the mid-levels. That's because I've done publication work for 40 years, and know what to do to make a RGB image from the camera into a CYMK image for printing. I'm especially careful to preserve shadow and highlight details. If an image doesn't have these details, I just won't submit it, period. I may hold back the highlights by about 10%, and boost the shadows by 50% (half a stop). This is before I boost brightness and contrast, if needed.

This was almost always done in the pre-press work before digital cameras and Photoshop came along.

I also use the unsharp mask most of the time to sharpen the image for publication. But sometimes that leads to funny results.

I usually don't play with the color balance. I use a standard color profile (SWOP2) on a carefully calibrated monitor, an Apple Cinema display. It is spot on for most presses--I haven't had a surprise in the past ten years, although Kirk did feel my colors were screwy one time. I work on two monitors--one calibrated, the other iffy at best (my tools monitor), so I can see how that would happen.

All of the above is perfectly acceptable to most editors and designers, as long as you know what you are doing. I put myself through college working for a quality printer. I learned how to retouch negatives from a charming old lady who had been doing it for 50 years. Let me tell you, Photoshop is much easier!

 

Pete Nolan and I share similar backgrounds. Worked for printers, shot color separation screens, stripped negatives, retouched prints, etc., etc. I must say the "Photoshop" universe (actually I use Corel in preference over Adobe) is much easier to work in--and also rife with temptation. I agree with the Grey One's philosophy: cropping, brightness, gamma, color balance and other "non-invasive" adjustments would be acceptable and even expected. But if I do anything beyond that, I will clearly define exactly what I've done to any image I publish. Here is one example of how I handle "full discosure" on digital manipulation:

http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/image_55.htm

While I don't object to invasive manipulation, I do object to publishing same without full discosure. Some years back in one of MR's annual photo contests, the winner had heavily altered his image (added a photo background, engine headlights, firebox glow, etc., etc.). If the contest had a separate category for "digitally manipulated images," this would have been acceptable; but in my mind, model photography is about challenging one's modeling and photography skills, not compensating for shortcomings in either with a computer. But, that's just my personal opinion.

 

I remember the recent MR debacle. I was a little surprised by how upset everyone was. It seems to me that all model railroad photos are altered: how much a technique upsets us seems to depend on how long it has been around. A 35mm manual camera seems pure enough--until you realize how much as been altered to yield one beautiful photo, from f-stops to filters to type of film used. Then the negative is developed, often using creative techniques such as Ansel Adams used in order to make the photo more dramatic. Many of the best photographers "set up" their photos, adding objects to the scene that were not there before in order to enhance a subject, which is very manipulative. I've been seeing beautiful but highly manipulated 35mm images since the 70's. I will never see most of these creative interpretations in a real forest, desert, or what-have-you.

A digital camera can do many of the same things, but now you can sit at your computer and adjust color balance, brightness and so forth. We don't seem to think twice about bringing a diorama out into the sunlight or generating fake smoke for a smokestack. Photos that pretend to shoot a scene from inside a cafe or a train cab meet everyone's approval--but of course they are absolutely faked. Why is it okay to make smoke and pretend to be in a cab but not to make a firebox look hot and plant a real human in the scene?

I really think that people got so upset by this one MR photo because it used a new technique. Who knows--if the photographer had been lauded instead of attacked, we might all be EXPECTED to make hot fireboxes, add bright engine lights, and plant real humans in photos.

 

I missed the MRR controversy, since I cancelled my subscription before it happened.

Photographers have always manipulated images in the darkroom. I did it back in the 60s and 70s to present the best image, and then I did it for a printer for four more years. And then I did it with Photoshop since the late 1980s.

I don't add smoke for steam locos, although it is well within my capabilities. I want people who visit my layout to see what's there, and think it's a fair representation of what was published.

I often take three or more iterations to get a shot. That is, I take the shot, pull the card from the camera, then look at it on my computer. Usually it's oops on the first take--see that piece of debris on the tracks, or that really bad seam at the corner of the building? So I fix the problems, and take a second set of photos. Oops, what's that white spot? Can I Photoshop it out?

I use Helicon Focus software for about 80% of my shots. Why not use a computer to increase the depth of field? Is this manipulation? I think not!

 

A Question of Ethics

Chaya,
While I understand what you are saying I have to disagree.
Yes, all of a photographer's skills including composition take place.
The MR Thing was a "Competition". There are rules in a competition. There was an understanding among the participants that digital alterations using computer software were not permitted. I am sure the winner went on the basis "well, it was not expressly forbidden so he could do it".

Yes the judges permitted it.
To me that is ethically wrong..
What goes around comes around.

 

I am with you on this 100%, Grey One. Adjusting the exposure or tweaking the color balance is one thing; it does not alter the model. Putting objects and effects into an image that were not there in real life is another thing altogether. It's no longer representative of the model. It's perhaps more evocative, interesting or fun, and it's just fine in and of itself; but it's not true to the spirit of a model photography competition, at least one that has no category for digital manipulation. Are photo backdrops on a layout OK? Of course. But digitally inserting a photo backdrop into a scene that wasn't there isn't; making lights work that don't isn't. I've been digitally manipulating images long before that photo contest ran, so it wasn't that it was "new" to me; it was a loophole that was exploited--without malice, I'm sure, but the end result was unethical nevertheless.

 

Sure it does, it makes it look better, that why I do it.


Jason

 

Don't misunderstand me. I don't like digital manipulation, either. But I also don't think "tweaking" color balance, brightness, etc. after the picture is taken are right: they definitely do change the model. I don't like the new 35mm films like Velvia, either. I want things to look exactly as they look to an observer, and I want it done with an old-fashioned camera with the assistance of good lighting.

I was not implying that these techniques are "new" to anyone here. Of course they are not. What I am saying is that certain photographic techniques are time-honored. While some may not use smoke, no one at all is going to scream about smoke if it turns up in a competition photo. In the digital age, people are even adding it with their computer programs, just as he added a hot firebox and engine lights. I am contending that the new digital "enhancement" techniques are altogether too new in that they are not 30 or 40 years old. Consequently, they upset people who would never think of doing such a thing to their own photos.

For that matter, is it right that people can build dioramas and photograph them outside for these competitions? Anyone with an indoor layout is put automatically at a disadvantage. Who operates an N-scale layout outdoors, anyway? Sunlight itself becomes an artificial enhancement.

Should digital cameras even be allowed, since their users are rarely able to produce a quality photograph without later digital manipulation? They are not presenting a photo, to my mind, but digital art. Personally, what I like in a photo competition is to know what camera settings were used, what film, and what special old-fashioned techniques were used. That stuff never even appears anymore because so much is done after the fact on a computer. I believe photographers for these competitions should have to inform the reader of the exact digital manipulations they did, including software used, numbers, and percentages. Is taking a photo from a cab or cafe window allowable? No one has ever squawked about that--yet the cab and the cafe window are nowhere to be found on the layout.

I was actually presenting this argument because though I dislike photo manipulation of any kind, I wonder if I am right to judge other peoples' work by the standards of a cantankerous 50-yr-old. I can understand why this guy did what he did--and I didn't like the way he was attacked. The attacks continue, as above quoted, with one writer implying that he intentionally took advantage of the rules and the other that he deliberately "exploited" a loophole. Are these photo competitions really so deadly serious that someone would try to figure his way around the rules so he could gain unfair advantage and win? Good grief, it certainly isn't a big money prize. Or are the competitions just another fun part of the hobby, an activity in which the poor guy failed to detect a poorly defined line before he crossed it?

 

If I am to be quoted, please do so such that my intent is not misrepresented. Specifically, I said:

"it was a loophole that was exploited--without malice, I'm sure"

The bolded part is important because I was not trying to imply that he searched for such a loophole to deliberately exploit; it is most likely that he stepped through the loophole without awareness, and without intention of trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It just so happened that the things he'd done to his image raised the ire of some modelers on the basis of what we perceive as permissible or not.

As for getting something to appear on film "exactly the way it looks," this is an impossibility, because film (digital or otherwise) can never behave as our eyes do, and also our perception is so fallible and individual that no two people could agree when a photograph was accurate. Usually, hue, contrast and such are adjusted to compensate for the fact that the camera cannot capture the image as our eye sees it, and the adjustments can at least bring the image more in line with the way we would like our models to be seen. Besides, once you submit photos for publication, chances are 100% that some adjustments will be made to make the images suitable for the printing process, just as images are often adjusted (differently) for the best appearance on the internet.

Sunlight an unfair advantage? Photos taken under artificial lighting have won contests consistently enough that I don't think modelers with indoor permanent layouts are automatically at a disadvantage. The quality of modeling, the subject matter, presentation, composition--all of these elements and more make for a winning photograph, not sunlight alone.

By the way, the reason I don't have a problem with "engine cab" shots and the like is that, even though they were contrived for a photo, they were at least real at the time of the photo. It took the imagination and skill of the modeler/photographer to assemble the scene and capture it. Digital manipulation is like taking a recording of a singer or band and mixing it to make them sound better than they really are (which is done often enough as it is these days). It's also a realm outside that of modeling and photography, a realm where relatively few modelers have as much skill, and this can present a very real "unfair advantage." There is a place in contests for digital manipulation: in a category specifically set aside for it.

 

Chaya,
I'm sorry. My point was not clear.
My understanding and I expect that of most people is that a photo contest in Model Railroader is:
1) Build a scene - diorama or not
2) Take a photograph of it with an analog or digital camera
3) Submit the un-doctored, (except for brightness, contrast, or gama),image results to MR.

The issue is not what can one do with a camera or with a computer. If the contest is "Digital Manipulation of an Image" Great!. But if the contest is create a model or scene and record it in a digital or analog format then I personally feel it should not be digitally altered except possible by adjusting the brightness, contrast or gama and only if allowed _explicitly_ by the rules of the contest. The key expression here is: "I perssonally feel".

The issue is that they are two different media. Using the various aspects of taking a picture is one thing. Using various aspects of computer software to alter that photograph is a completely different skill set.
Due to visual limitations I am:
1) A very poor modeler
2) A very good photographer
3) From very poor to very good with photo manipulation.

So, I truly feel it comes down to ethics if it is not spelled out in the rules. I wouldn't do it. You can be sure when I submit a photograph for trainboards weekly contests they most manipulation I do is selecting the optimum cropping.
That's just me.
Your perception of what is right will likely vary.
If you are ever in Boston let me know. We can talk about this over a glass of wine.

 

It's interesting how the emphasis of this topic changed from a generalized question of photo manipulation to questioning the ethics of a photo contest winner.

I don't think anyone here should impugn the ethics of the _winner_. Obviously the MR judges realized there was manipulation of the image. They awarded it first place. Subsequently, they divided suceeding contests into two groupings because of a percieved unfairness in the _rules_ that allowed massive manipulation digitally. If MR thought it fraudulent, it was their place to make the ethical determination.

So when is it unethical to manipulate images? When there is fraud involved. If I Photoshop images of stuff I'm selling on eBay or on a forum or email list, there probably isn't much question of a lack of ethics. If I use Helicon software to compensate for the inherent limitations of any photographic method we currently have available, where is the beef? The photo is _not_ an end, but a means of communication. When I look at a scene in person, I don't percieve any depth of field limitations, my eyes and brain do the same integration seamlesly.

Now if there is some other artifact included, like a view through a cab window, we _know_ that it was added. We know it _had_ to have been added, so there can be no fraud, since fraud is a _serious_ attempt to decieve.

Ok, I digitally put in a photographic background that shows what I have in my mind's eye. Is that very much different than if I had that background printed out at $$$ and glued it to the wall? Yeah, it is a fib if I purport that this what you would see if you came to Idaho and in my basement. A bit pathetic rather than fraudulent.

Pete Nolan said he extends his backgrounds upwards photomagically because of the deck spacing. Would I be inclined to want to slug him if I visited and found plywood and other stuff where I expected sky? Probably not.

If someone resorts to manipulation of images to gain respect for nonexistant modeling skills, it's no skin off my probocis. But perhaps, they might gain some of the respect they crave if their skills at Photoshopping were given credence.

Bob in IDaho, who's work has warts (if you know where to look), and I won't erase them photomagically, but I damned well won't point them out either in any photos.

 

rs - True, the MR judges did not declare it fraudulent which in the end is the final word on it's acceptability. That does not change what I personally feel about it. I have to emphasize those are _my_ values. I'll concede "unethical" is a very strong word to paint an action with. If there is a lighter term that conveys a deliberate and knowing act I am willing to consider it.

As for other published works as I believe I indicated I don't have an issue if it helps to communicate or contributes to the presentation.

Edit:
I do not mean to imply or state that the winner is a bad person..
Ethics are personal values. I have expressed my values and the rules I try to live by in my glass house built upon sand.

I apologize for any negative attributes my comments contained.

 

Digital camera's have given average Joe's the ability to take a decent picture moreso than ever. If you want proof take a look at this Nikon project where they gave the residents of a small town free cameras to see what they could produce:

http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown/

Ansel Adams had more than 40,000 negatives in his collection. He regularly used different film types, different types of processing and manipulated his photos into works of art in the darkroom. This was with traditional film cameras and many, many years ago so "manipulating" photos is not something new.

Most people don't realize it, but when you used to take your traditional film camera photos in to be printed, the processing machines usually "enhanced" your photos adjusting the brightness and contrast, saturation and overall color cast in an attempt to "improve" what you shot through the viewfinder. Shooting with Fuji or Kodachrome films would produce radically different looks depending on what you were looking for.

The digital world is largely the same with the camera itself doing a certain amount of photo processing to fix saturation, exposure, sharpness and more. Photoshop is the new digital darkroom now.

I think most people would agree that making basic adjustments for exposure, sharpness, contrast, saturation and such still stay within the overall spirit of not severely manipulating a photo. However when you start to digitally add whole portions to a scene, add elements that don't exist in real life and "clean up" loose ballast and other things in the scene that might show flaws or sloppy modeling, then you're starting to paint a picture that doesn't exist in real life and isn't a true indication of your model ability. That's fine so long as you tell people that and set the expectation that what they are looking at isn't an accurate depiction of your model railroad.

Almost all product photography used in advertising is manipulated in some way. Likewise modeling photos. In fact we're bombarded with it all the time in daily life and take it for granted. It has become part of our culture so to speak and if you're going to have a photography contest these days you're going to have to go to great lengths to try and spot it.

Just my humble .02 cents.

-jamie

 

That's a good point, of course. What I meant was, "Exactly the way it looks to me." When I photograph a landscape, for instance, I see it in my own way. No one else sees what I see. I may see drama, or darkness, or great size, for example, where someone else may see serenity, stability, or brilliant colors. My job is to produce a photograph that shows viewers exactly what I see. Photographers do this when they use Velvia film to produce garish colors: that's what their mind's eye sees, and that's what they want me to see.

Model railroaders have long modeled steam engines and regretted the lack of smoke and steam. They see it in their imaginations, and so many of them place artificial smoke and steam in their photos. Similarly, the fellow who won the MR contest probably sees bright headlights, a hot firebox, and himself as the engineer when he runs his trains. It could be argued that a model without these characteristics is not realistic, just like a steam locomotive without smoke. He managed to produce a photo that shows viewers exactly what he sees when he runs his trains. (In the same way, sunlight provides the crisp definition, brightness, and shadow that we all imagine when we run our model trains through a summer scene). As I recall, the guy was a good modeler: his photoshopping was therefore not intended to cover up defects.

I do believe that what is required here is a paradigm shift: the man was just ahead of his time. We all know that smoke and a view from the cab don't exist on Joe Blow's layout. And it's just as obvious that Joe Blow isn't really sitting in his own model engine's cab.

 

Thanks, Grey One, I'll take you up on that.

Couldn't resist going to your website to view your photos. You have an interesting take on things. I like your technique. Much enjoyed the photos as well as the visit.

 

This has been a fascinating discussion for me. I remember catching one of the major auto magazines about 15 years back with the wrong shadow angle on the cover. I got back a polite response from the art director basically saying it was none of my business.

I admit in my articles when I've Photoshopped in the backgrounds, or extended them. I've got nothing to hide. Otherwise I'd be limited in showing my layout to small scenes. Part of the appeal of N scale is the ability to create large scenes. There is no place on my layout without a backdrop but, except for the top level, they are 15 inches high at a maximum.

Photography can wreak havoc on a layout, which is why I'm not afraid to get rid of debris. I use weeds for trees, and they are messy, especially when I hit them while arranging a shot. I have lousy visual acuity, so sometimes I don't notice debris until I bring a shot up on a computer. Then my reaction is: shall I brush off that one piece of tree or ballast and retake the shot, or should I just remove it with Photoshop?

I use Helicon Focus software for about 80% of my model railroad photos. This is digital manipulation at it most intensive. And at its finest. But how else am I going to get the depth of field of real life, or of larger scales?

Sure there's a way--but it's expensive. I have a Nikon 12-24 mm zoom for my D70. That's a $1000 lens, that has a depth of field at f/22 from inches to infinity. I also have a 17mm lens for my film Nikon--also expensive. So, does expensive means you're going to win photo contests? Of course not, but it's certainly a leg up. And I'd rather use Helicon at f/8 than a single shot at f/22 because I get rid of diffraction and distortion.

I'm always willing to discuss how I took a shot. I never thought of including the info with articles. It's all there, just never thought of it!

I'll spend a little time digging up some samples, because seeing images is really the best way to understanding them.