# This is why you guys need to learn digital editing



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

It always amazes me when I hear of so many people on this site, with 500+ dollar cameras who don't know how to do anything beyond resizing in photoshop









What good can digital imaging do with your pictures? Well here's an extreme case which I usually wouldn't do so much, but it's to make a point. I removed scratches, cleared up noise, removed two fingers, a fish skull, a rock that was off colored, and redid the white balancing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, not post processing your image in paintshop/photoshop afterwards is like taking your best shots ever and developing them at the 1hour photo inside of walmart.



















I tried to keep this shot a secret for... certain reasons where it might pop up... but I could barely contain not sharing it before, now that I made an even better version I've cracked.


----------



## LunaSick (Nov 18, 2003)

removing all the stuff was good, but i think the first pic looks better quality.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Really? What's different that you think makes the second look worse in your eyes? I personally thought the color balancing and mild noise removal made it look better but I'm interested to hear another perspective on it.


----------



## LunaSick (Nov 18, 2003)

well the second pic looks like theres no tank light, i like the reflections , makes the rhom look more colorful(imo)


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Hm, hadn't thought of it that way. To each his own I guess


----------



## P-Power (Jan 23, 2004)

goddamn that is one sweet picture..

I'm sorry... I do agree with what you say about using photoshop etc, but that first pic is still really good.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

You like the first one better as well?


----------



## Ries (Mar 20, 2004)

verry nice pic


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

I guess i'd count as one of those people who doesnt use photoshop. I intend to learn how to use it, but i'd rather concentrate on taking quality pics with the camera rather than having to alter them afterwards. 
I'd never enter a picture into potm if i'd added or removed objects, as i think its cheating. removing scratches and improving the actual quality is a lot different to actually altering the content of the pic.


----------



## TripDs (Oct 11, 2004)

first


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Gordeez Says: Personally, I agree with Twitch and yorkie.
Its good to understand a program like photoshop, cause its not really cheating, they tune up FILM Pictures as well. Photoshop can Enhance a Good picture and making it into a GREATER Picture. BUT, As Yorkie said, Its good to try and master your camera. Take Great images without an photo help.

I Use CS to resize, Sometimes Edit the Color balance, add lens blur and Sharpen.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

:rasp: i like the first one too
and i just got a program to do photo work
when i get some time ill give it a twirl


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

Gordeez said:


> Gordeez Says: Personally, I agree with Twitch and yorkie.
> Its good to understand a program like photoshop, cause its not really cheating, they tune up FILM Pictures as well. Photoshop can Enhance a Good picture and making it into a GREATER Picture. BUT, As Yorkie said, Its good to try and master your camera. Take Great images without an photo help.
> 
> I Use CS to resize, Sometimes Edit the Color balance, add lens blur and Sharpen.
> [snapback]805925[/snapback]​


They do tune up pictures for contrast,brightness and hue before printing them from film at the places around here .
Adjustments using photoshop aren't allowed according to the rules of the POTM contest.. 
View attachment 41416


----------



## Fresh2salt (Jul 16, 2004)

the first pic looks better IMO. sweet fish you have there


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

yorkshire said:


> I'd never enter a picture into potm if i'd added or removed objects, as i think its cheating. removing scratches and improving the actual quality is a lot different to actually altering the content of the pic.
> [snapback]805909[/snapback]​











Actual messing with the contents of an image is not allowed - well, as far as POTM entries go - but I don't see changing brightness/contrast, color levels, hue/saturation etc. or sharpening an image as messing with the contents: it only enhances the quality, and I think everyone should be encouraged to do that, as it results in much better pictures (I hardly ever publish non-edited pictures, because the raw material rarely is good enough for publication).
A bit of Photoshopping can work miracles, in many cases is even a prerequisite to get an image that that reflects reality at least somewhat properly: colored aquarium lights and flash light aren't exactly beneficial for colors, contrast, levels etc., and not everyone wants to buy expensive lights that are only used for picture purposes (and are usually not appreciated by the fish themselves).

Having said this, the ultimate goal of course is to shoot pictures that are good enough for publication without editing (apart from resizing) - it takes a LOT of reading up on photography theory (there are some cool photograhpy-related things in the pipe-line, so stay tuned







), practicing and fiddling around with your camera to get that far, however.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Well, not to try and start anything but the "no altering in photoshop" rule is retarded. The moment you resize your picture to conform to the ridiculous size restrictions imposed on the POTM it's altered. What is "altering" an imagine in photoshop anyway? If I go into photoshop and adjust the sharpness to bring out the contours better, change the color balance and remove digital camera noise it's "altering" but if I manual set my camera to do this itself what is it then? Or how about if I have a 1200 dollar camera that automatically sets the white balance and contrast correctly but someone who has a 150 dollar camera that doesn't is no longer allowed to go into photoshop and manually do what a better camera can automatically correct?

I'd never noticed that rule before, and while I've never cut anything out of a picture I've submitted, I have and will continue to change the sharpness, contrast, color balance and noise removal.

And I'm still surprised people like the first one better (I'm assuming because of the colors), that's not any piranhas natural color to have a blue tint but ok...


----------



## 351winsor (Aug 3, 2004)

wow,thats cool.Too bad I dont have a 500 dolla cam.


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

I agree with Judazz and Twitch.
People who have $1000+ Cameras can take AMAZING pictures. But people with $3-400 Can too, But you cant compare it to a top end camera. They will need PS
to do things there Camera CANT do.

Also Twtich, I prefer the 2nd shot. The fingers were a distraction. And the colors seem more accurate.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Gordeez said:


> Also Twtich, I prefer the 2nd shot. The fingers were a distraction. And the colors seem more accurate.
> [snapback]806254[/snapback]​


Thank god someone out there likes it, my whole editing rationale was about to come crashing down, lol

It all seemed so logical, I'm surprised people like the first one, but as I said, it's personal taste and that's cool anyway


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

Both pics look the same to me, quality wise.


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

rchan11 said:


> Both pics look the same to me, quality wise.
> [snapback]806611[/snapback]​


Yes, But the second one has the Correct White Balance applied to it.
It also doesnt have the fingers, which distract viewers from the Fish.


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

There's a big difference between improving quality by altering white balance etc and removing or adding an object from a pic. 
totally removing the background and replacing it with another is the same as only removing a rock or fingers, just one step further. I think there needs to be some sort of rules to potm comps, otherwise people could enter pictures of something that never actually ever existed.

I think the second pic is the best looking pic,
however i like the 1st one more because it shows what really happened. your rhom is one mean mofo attacking your finger.
imo the best pic would have been the top one with the white balance corrected, scratches in the tank glass removed etc, and with the fingers left in :nod:


----------



## Bawb2u (May 27, 2004)

It's a real fine line when it comes to editing pics. Here are a couple I took of my Xingu rhom.
This is how the fish looks under normal aquarium lighting. Pretty basic looking. Wouldn't get any votes for POTM.









This is just with flash and no Photoshopping except adjusting brightness. Looks good and kind of "pops" off the page. In my opinion this is the maximum that should be done for any picture and should be allowable for POTM consideration. 









This is the same picture Photoshopped with Autolevels. Looks fantastic and probably would get comments on how amazing the fish looks but it's not a true representation of this fish and I don't think this should be allowed to be submitted for POTM. 









Just my post whoring 2 cents.


----------



## Lex (Oct 17, 2004)

simply resizing the pic from 5megapixels down to whatever the POTM size restrainsts are (i assume something like 800x600, i dont know) is already giving those with an expensive camera an advantage...

when you shrink a pic thats 3000+ pixels to 800 pixels while keeping quality levels at maximum, the 3000+ shrunk pic will look more detailed and possibly crisper than the one taken by someone with a camera who's max res is 800...

perhaps instead of a resolution limit there should be a maximum file size allowed for POTM submissions...

btw, i like the second pic better, specifically because it looks 'cleaner' overall...


----------



## sKuz (May 21, 2003)

IMO the first shot was fine the way it was. Second shot just as nice, but not like it made a huuuuuuuge difference


----------



## Red-Belly-Mike (Jun 21, 2004)

Thats the same pic right? I dont get how you removed you fingers?


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Lex said:


> simply resizing the pic from 5megapixels down to whatever the POTM size restrainsts are (i assume something like 800x600, i dont know) is already giving those with an expensive camera an advantage...
> 
> when you shrink a pic thats 3000+ pixels to 800 pixels while keeping quality levels at maximum, the 3000+ shrunk pic will look more detailed and possibly crisper than the one taken by someone with a camera who's max res is 800...
> 
> ...


Sorry dude, but that's not possible. A 1600 x 800 image has the same pixels whether it was taken on a 5 megapixel camera or a 16 megapixel camera. All those extra pixels get lost when it is shrunk so there is no difference at all between the two.

Red belly - Yeah same picture, it's a complicated process involving cutting and pasting that actually lets the clone brush do it's thing.


----------



## SpAzZy (Mar 30, 2004)

your rhom definitly looks more natural in the second picture. if you can't tell that those colors are not natural, look at his twitch's fingers, they are also tinted blue. i think that you could have left the fingers as it shows your rhom's aggression more than a "yorkie"-style yawning picture. PS should be allowed to an extent, but there shouldn't be an removal of objects or anything like that. i personally have not yet ps'ed a POTM submission. i probably should have fixed the coloration slightly, but i take a lot of pics and pray that i have chose the right settings on my camera. i'm learning to use my camera to its full potential first before i start PS'ing it. i would also like to say that it is correct that a $1000 camera will take better quality pictures than a $150 camera.. but PS can make up for some of the slack. also, either camera will be essentially the same in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to adjust the settings or work the camera optimally (although there are autoadjustments). someone experienced will definitly take 10x better pics on the $1000 camera.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> The moment you resize your picture to conform to the ridiculous size restrictions imposed on the POTM it's altered.[snapback]806104[/snapback]​


The POTM is for everyone, from people with crappy 0,25 Mpixel phone cams to people with professional 16 MPixel equipment, from people with a 28k modem to people with a GBit internet connection.
In order to keep it accessable and enjoyable for everyone, the weakest link determines what and how - for all those with 1000-dollar camera's or lightning fast internet access the message is simple: tough luck...


----------



## Bloodbelly (Jun 15, 2004)

Red-Belly-Mike said:


> Thats the same pic right? I dont get how you removed you fingers?
> [snapback]807447[/snapback]​


Just copy some part of the picture and paste it over something you don't wanna see, like in this case the fingers/fish skull.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> Thank god someone out there likes it, my whole editing rationale was about to come crashing down, lol
> 
> It all seemed so logical, I'm surprised people like the first one, but as I said, it's personal taste and that's cool anyway
> 
> ...


I prefer the second as well.


----------



## killarbee (Jan 23, 2004)

Photoshop ?? never heard from that







nice pics


----------



## mrwilson99 (Jul 12, 2003)

good, but not great. You can't even see fish's full body.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> The POTM is for everyone, from people with crappy 0,25 Mpixel phone cams to people with professional 16 MPixel equipment, from people with a 28k modem to people with a GBit internet connection.
> In order to keep it accessable and enjoyable for everyone, the weakest link determines what and how - for all those with 1000-dollar camera's or lightning fast internet access the message is simple: tough luck...
> [snapback]807775[/snapback]​


Yes it's all fine and good to champion the cause of the masses and whatnot, but I dinstinctly remember a poll regarding picture size in the lounge where people were asked to vote what size format they preffered. A few dozen were spliut between 600 pixels and 800 pixels, a few more wanted 1024, and some wanted no limit at all. TWO PEOPLE wanted to maintain the 500 pixel limit, and as both you and ms natt commented that you were in favor of it, it can be assumed that there was your two votes, meaning not one single member supports this. So it isn't people with 1000-dollar cameras or lightning fast internet access that you're telling tough luck, it's every single member but yourself you're telling tough luck, which means you aren't doing this for anyone but your own sense of stubborness.

EDIT: Wilson I wasn't trying to get the fish's full body


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

Red-Belly-Mike said:


> Thats the same pic right? I dont get how you removed you fingers?
> [snapback]807447[/snapback]​


there is a clone stamp tool that allows u take a certain area of the picture and apply to a different one. So in this pic, he just used a section of the substrate and brushed it over his fingers.


----------



## Red-Belly-Mike (Jun 21, 2004)




----------



## Red-Belly-Mike (Jun 21, 2004)

Bloodbelly said:


> Just copy some part of the picture and paste it over something you don't wanna see, like in this case the fingers/fish skull.
> [snapback]807806[/snapback]​


Ok Thats what I thought, It just looked so perfect (being serious) that I had to question it.









I notice it now when I look at the picture. Thats weird


----------



## Methuzela (Apr 27, 2004)

bawb2u if you like how auto levels changes your photo you should try how to actually use the levels manually, you will get a much better result, and you can control what happens as opposed to just pressing a magic button


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Since this seems to have resurrected itself, here's another example, far less drastic and this is kind of more practical. I wouldn't really take fingers out of a picture but balancing like this I would usually do

Original









Fixed up


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

wow thats a big improvement
but these modified pics shouldent be allowed in the competitions 
i dont do any editing (







thats why they are green)
and i rely on pure talent
with i have none.but im getting better .but those too pics look totally diffrent


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Death in # said:


> but these modified pics shouldent be allowed in the competitions
> [snapback]817515[/snapback]​


Except for removing the particles in back it's the exact same picture, with the exact same subjects in the exact same positions under the exact same lighting, what's different about them? I'd hate to burst everyone's bubble but with the exception of removing some of the fine particles in the water every single change made to the picture (there are three, contrast enhancement, noise removal, sharpening) are settings that are automatically taken care of by my camera I just chose to disable them and have more control by doing it myself in photoshop. So if I set my camera to do this automatically, it's fine, but if I do it myself it's too altered? Come again?

And as for POTM it's not that much of a concern of mine, I just enter it to show a picture couldn't care less about winning.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> Except for removing the particles in back it's the exact same picture, with the exact same subjects in the exact same positions under the exact same lighting, what's different about them? I'd hate to burst everyone's bubble but with the exception of removing some of the fine particles in the water every single change made to the picture (there are three, contrast enhancement, noise removal, sharpening) are settings that are automatically taken care of by my camera I just chose to disable them and have more control by doing it myself in photoshop. So if I set my camera to do this automatically, it's fine, but if I do it myself it's too altered? Come again?
> 
> And as for POTM it's not that much of a concern of mine, I just enter it to show a picture couldn't care less about winning.
> [snapback]817541[/snapback]​


but that takes away all the talent 
im not that good at talking about photo lingo but (contrast enhancement, noise removal, sharpening)if those were set on the camera then the pic wouldent of come out as clean i think
dont get me wrong i love that second pic 
one of the best colors i ever seen on a photo
maybe i need to stop bitching and learn how to use photoshop


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

Death in # said:


> but that takes away all the talent
> im not that good at talking about photo lingo but (contrast enhancement, noise removal, sharpening)if those were set on the camera then the pic wouldent of come out as clean i think
> dont get me wrong i love that second pic
> one of the best colors i ever seen on a photo
> ...


I dont use photoshop either, although i'm gonna spend some time learning.
So far i've concentrated on camera skills, as i feel this is much more important.
I agree with Twitch's point though, and i dont think there is such a thing as an unedited picture, they've all been manipulated in some way by the camera, thats why you can take a picture of exactly the same thing, with two different cameras with the same settings, and the pics will look completely diferent.


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Death in # said:


> I dont do any editing laugh: thats why they are *green*)
> and i rely on pure talent[snapback]817515[/snapback]​


























Photoshop is your Friend.
Of course it helps to master your camera, Improves pictures a whole lot more.
Also means less photoshop work.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

Gordeez said:


> Photoshop is your Friend.
> Of course it helps to master your camera, Improves pictures a whole lot more.
> Also means less photoshop work.
> [snapback]818029[/snapback]​










i knew you would of gotten a laugh out of that


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Death in # said:


> :rasp: i knew you would of gotten a laugh out of that
> [snapback]818575[/snapback]​


Oh man if yu only knew
I laugh cery easily. but easier when im drnjk
Dunyn thing is this. Right now that im drunk, it drank JD, THE GREEN LABWL


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Death in # said:


> but that takes away all the talent
> im not that good at talking about photo lingo but (contrast enhancement, noise removal, sharpening)if those were set on the camera then the pic wouldent of come out as clean i think
> dont get me wrong i love that second pic
> one of the best colors i ever seen on a photo
> ...


Dude don't take this the wrong way, because I like ya and all, but saying it "takes away all the talent" really pisses me off. I think you're a bit misinformed on what you do in photoshop to get a picture like the second one I have. Every single thing done to that picture, is a function my camera, and your camera, and pretty much every camera over 500 dollars does automatically. I don't open the drop down menu and click on "make picture good now" to get that, I go and I set the white balance, *something your camera does automatically but I prefer to do manually*. I remove the noise from the background, *something your camera does automatically but I prefer to do manually*. I increase the sharpness, *something your camera does automatically because it's default sharpness is set higher than the Canons which are known to be set to a lower setting, rather than up it on my camera I prefer to do it manually*. How is it that it takes out all the talent when I'm actually doing what your camera is doing automatically for you. If anything, I'm doing more than you because I prefer to adjust the contrast and white balance rather than have my camera do it for me. I'm doing the stuff you let a computer do for you, in what way is your camera doing the work a reflection of "talent" exactly?

Besides that dude, what does it matter? What about exposure settings? I don't know about you, but I shoot fully manual. That means I set my metering mode between one specific point, several or an average of the whole shot, point the camera at the area I want to set my exposure for, look at the light meter in my view finder, then pick the aperture and shutter speed that will work for the shot I want to do and will give me the right exposure. ALOT of people here don't shoot manually, they set to fully automatic, or aperture priority or shutter speed priority, point the camera at what they want to shoot and the camera itself picks the settings for the shot. They don't light meter, they don't pick the settings themselves, a computer does it. I'm doing more when I take my shots, but so what? I focus entirely in manual as well, other people let their camera set the right focal point and just shoot, so what exactly? I do a fuckload more when I take my shots than alot of people who shoot autofocus in aperture priority with automatic white balance but what does that matter from judging that person's *picture* exactly? Last I checked, we were here taking pictures of our fish to make pictures that LOOK GOOD, not so we could do some dick measuring contest and say "Im the most skilled of all, I shot this m**********r with a pinhole camera and candle light for a flash, that's hard" like that's what makes us better photographers, so why are you bringing it up?

Every single shot, down to the last one I have ever posted since getting my Canon has been manual focus, manual shutter speed, manual aperture and manual ISO. I didn't do it so I could be self righteous like I'm the super skilled photographer and look down on people who do it differently, I did it because I like having that control myself and not letting a computer decide how my shot turns out.

It's nothing against you man, but how do you back up your logic exactly?


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Oooh oooh, everyone get all snobby and look down our noses at york for not using manual. Ok go
> You shot that in Shutter Speed Priority AE
> 
> 
> ...


Remember this Twitch :rasp:


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

:rasp: dam twitch did i get under your skin
i was just messing with you
most of the time i shoot in auto mode,except when im out doors








dont take anything i said to you seriously i was messing with you like you mess with me and my green shots 
and im gonna learn photoshop to 
i gont even no what niose reduction is in a camera


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

yorkshire said:


> Remember this Twitch :rasp:
> [snapback]819979[/snapback]​


Obviously it was a joke, I could understand how it was lost on your British sense of humor though. Perhaps if I incorporated a scene where a man spills tea on himself and another man goes "you've spilt tea on yourself" and the first one goes "yes, quite" it would be more attuned to the english style of humor









Death it's all fine man, if it's your opinion it's your opinion, I just strongly disagree with it. While you're free to think however you want, I don't always have to agree with your point of view is all.


----------



## micus (Jan 7, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Obviously it was a joke, I could understand how it was lost on your British sense of humor though. Perhaps if I incorporated a scene where a man spills tea on himself and another man goes "you've spilt tea on yourself" and the first one goes "yes, quite" it would be more attuned to the english style of humor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ohhh burn,


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Obviously it was a joke, I could understand how it was lost on your British sense of humor though. Perhaps if I incorporated a scene where a man spills tea on himself and another man goes "you've spilt tea on yourself" and the first one goes "yes, quite" it would be more attuned to the english style of humor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know you were only kidding Twitch, hence the








must admit you seem a little touchy at the mo though :laugh:


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Touchy? f*ck man I've been getting that sh*t all day.

"Are you having a bad day Richard? The coffee machine didnt really fall off the counter by itself now did it?"

"Excuse me sir, but are you aware that what you did constitutes a federal offence?"

"blah blah blah assault charges blah blah blah"

f*cking get off my god damn case already.

And for the love of god, I'm joking, seriously. Except for Monty Python you brits really do have a shitty sense of humor (I'll cut my balls off before I watch another second of Fawlty Towers) but I knew you were kidding, it was a joke back at you. I'm not even upset at anyone, with exception to Death's comment everything was responded to with a joke. As for Death's comment, I only wanted to clarify that I'm not doing anything that isn't traditionally done in a photolab or done by your digital camera for the sake of making it easy for consumers to get images without having to know all sorts of crap. If you know film you know that I'm doing the exact same stuff a photolab does when they develop their prints, white balancing, contrast and the like are not done by a film camera, it's done by the developers. I do the same thing but with photoshop because a computer only guesses what you want, I'd rather do what I want done myself. I'm not mad at anyone man, not even Death and his stupid ugly face (joke, again) I just feel strongly about trying to make myself a better photographer and don't like it implied like I'm making some kind of shortcut or taking an easy way out or "not knowing my camera" is all. I didn't write that out to give Death sh*t, I did it because I wanted to explain that it can't possibly be construed as cheating or "less skill" for the reasons I already went over. If someone still thinks that way, I'll try and explain it again, but I'm not upset dude, I just really don't like that kind of misconception and feel a need to clarify it.

For real, honestly, not mad at anyone


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> "Are you having a bad day Richard? The coffee machine didnt really fall off the counter by itself now did it?"[snapback]820185[/snapback]​


----------



## yorkshire (Jul 27, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Touchy? f*ck man I've been getting that sh*t all day.
> 
> "Are you having a bad day Richard? The coffee machine didnt really fall off the counter by itself now did it?"
> 
> [snapback]820185[/snapback]​


Ahhh so you are suffering from caffeine withdrawal, what with breaking the machine :laugh:


----------

