# Why do people feel the need to..



## Grizzle

Use a Photoshop type program when posting their work?

The last few weeks i have noticed a number of people use it to make colours more vibrant and to add "effects" to the picture.


----------



## tonz

Maybe the car looks crap without !


----------



## alan_mcc

IMO i don't mind a bit of brightness/contrast adjusting


----------



## -ROM-

Grizzle said:


> Use a Photoshop type program when posting their work?
> 
> The last few weeks i have noticed a number of people use it to make colours more vibrant and to add "effects" to the picture.


I've noticed this on quite a few details too, use of the shadows and highlights function to give the cars a more reflective finish than they would actually have in real life!

It's quite obvious to people who are familiar with photoshop and photography. But a little misleading to people who aren't and could be potentially disappointed when they employ a pro and their car doesn't look like photos they've seen on DW.

I did something like this for a DW supporter who wanted to use a photo for their website and enhanced the gloss a little (in a realistic way) and a lot of people asked how i did it. So i told them and since then i've noticed a lot of people using the technique in their write ups but pushing it to the extreme, to the point where the body work looks like a glass mirror!


----------



## Alex_225

On a detail thread I don't really see the point as you're not actually seeing the end result. 

Fair enough if you have a cool pic then chop it a bit to make the most of it but that's different.


----------



## Glasgow_Gio

I think a lot of people now use photoshop to blank out regisration plates and think.....why not just increase this and increase that.....

it kind of goes against everything detailing stands for imo.


----------



## Grizzle

rmorgan84 said:


> I've noticed this on quite a few details too, use of the shadows and highlights function to give the cars a more reflective finish than they would actually have in real life!
> 
> It's quite obvious to people who are familiar with photoshop and photography. But a little misleading to people who aren't and could be potentially disappointed when they employ a pro and their car doesn't look like photos they've seen on DW.
> 
> I did something like this for a DW supporter who wanted to use a photo for their website and enhanced the gloss a little (in a realistic way) and a lot of people asked how i did it. So i told them and since then i've noticed a lot of people using the technique in their write ups but pushing it to the extreme, to the point where the body work looks like a glass mirror!


Exactly, i have no idea how to use Photoshop my self apart from blurring out plates/faces etc

I know the camera hides some of the finish but to me its a tad cheating, i also agree on the point about potentially employing a pro but the finish might not be what has been edited on their pics.

Very misleading and a shame we cant be truthful about our abilities to detail a vehicle.


----------



## Clark @ PB

I think it's always pretty obvious if they've been played about with and I think its fine if you state they're not how they came off the camera, hence why on the likes of the RS4 last week that Rich posted, he posted the originals and then stated the ones below had been messed about with in PS etc so no confusion was had 

At the end of the day, if a car aint that well prepped - no amount of photoshopping is going to hide that...


----------



## dw0510

I dont even have PS let alone know how to use it so not guilty here!


----------



## Dave KG

I use Photoshop only to resize (maintaining the aspect ratio) and blank out number plates, and nothing else... To me, adjusting colours, hues etc is just cheating yourself. Any detailing finish is as good as it is, and i see no need to play around making it look better - I'm proud of my own results, and other detailers should be too, and not have the need to edit finished pictures. IMO of course.


----------



## spitfire

Remember that pictures are an electronic format and the picture taken is not what the eye sees. Therefor what you call enhancements may in actual fact be nearer what the photographer has seen with his eye.


----------



## alan_mcc

I don't have the original of the pic but i think this would resemble it straight from the camera..










After clicking one button - 'Auto Levels'










I wouldn't really call that cheating, more getting the better out of a sh*t camera.


----------



## Dave KG

Based on my colleague's knowledge of Photoshop (I know nothing about it really), it is possible to hide a lot of sins with it, make paint look much better than it actually is... but this is also possible with clever lighting as well - the use of only 500W halogens for example rings alarm bells with me as they can hide all manner of nasties in the paint, while a Brinkman or better still a Sun Gun will show up a true finish. Turn the halogens to light up a wall, and leave the car in a darkened room (by not lighting it directly) and it will reflect like a mirror irrespective of the finish on the paint! 

It all boils down to knowing what you are looking for in a paint finish, and this is why I believe all detailers who post should be fully honest with their postings and the photorgraphy carried out on the car.


----------



## Dave KG

spitfire said:


> Remember that pictures are an electronic format and the picture taken is not what the eye sees. Therefor what you call enhancements may in actual fact be nearer what the photographer has seen with his eye.


Yes, depends on the type of compression used... JPEG is the favourite, all my pictures are JPEGS - but I dont see much enhancement to a finish from a JPEG compression over a RAW format, simply a reduction in image quality again if you know what you are looking for. Image, or more generally file, compression is a very interesting topic


----------



## Clark @ PB

Dave KG said:


> Based on my colleague's knowledge of Photoshop (I know nothing about it really), it is possible to hide a lot of sins with it, make paint look much better than it actually is... but this is also possible with clever lighting as well - the use of only 500W halogens for example rings alarm bells with me as they can hide all manner of nasties in the paint, while a Brinkman or better still a Sun Gun will show up a true finish. Turn the halogens to light up a wall, and leave the car in a darkened room (by not lighting it directly) and it will reflect like a mirror irrespective of the finish on the paint!
> 
> It all boils down to knowing what you are looking for in a paint finish, and this is why I believe all detailers who post should be fully honest with their postings and the photorgraphy carried out on the car.


Even with a sun gun you can angle it enough to hide certain defects I've found.

For us, it would be pretty pointless as we have too many customers in and out the door every day who could easily say the car didnt look as good as it did in the pics :lol:


----------



## Dave KG

Clark said:


> Even with a sun gun you can angle it enough to hide certain defects I've found.
> 
> For us, it would be pretty pointless as we have too many customers in and out the door every day who could easily say the car didnt look as good as it did in the pics :lol:


As I said above, if you know what you are doing, you can use the light to hide a lot... But this same knowledge can be applied to use the light to show everything up, which is my favoured use of the light as it makes for better tutorial style writeups... But for those that are misleading using the clever angles of the lights, then personally I think they are cheating themselves and their customers which if this indeed going on, is a rather sad state of affairs...


----------



## Clark @ PB

Dave KG said:


> As I said above, if you know what you are doing, you can use the light to hide a lot... But this same knowledge can be applied to use the light to show everything up, which is my favoured use of the light as it makes for better tutorial style writeups... But for those that are misleading using the clever angles of the lights, then personally I think they are cheating themselves and their customers which if this indeed going on, is a rather sad state of affairs...


To be honest though, they usually get found out at some point


----------



## Dave KG

Clark said:


> To be honest though, they usually get found out at some point


Hopefully before they mislead too many people though (and by too many, I mean misleading just one person is too many...)


----------



## spitfire

Dave KG said:


> Yes, depends on the type of compression used... JPEG is the favourite, all my pictures are JPEGS - but I dont see much enhancement to a finish from a JPEG compression over a RAW format, simply a reduction in image quality again if you know what you are looking for. Image, or more generally file, compression is a very interesting topic


Also, when posting pictures though Photobucket there is a loss of quality. IMHO, to increase the quality of the pic as a whole is not deception. We all know pictures are not a true reflection of how a car actually looks in the flesh. You yourself Dave, at some point, must have commented on how dificult it is to photograph swirls in certain colours of paint. That proves my point about how we see things and how a camera interprets them.


----------



## -ROM-

To whom ever the mod is who moved this to photography zone, can we have it moved back please. It's a good subject for discussion and although it's about photography to a certain extent it is more appropriate to have it in off topic or detailing chat. The photography aspect is second fiddle to the subject of detailers potentially misleading customers and as such should get as much attention as possible, not hid away in a little visited section fo the forum.


----------



## Grizzle

Dave KG said:


> Hopefully before they mislead too many people though (and by too many, I mean misleading just one person is too many...)


Hence why i asked the Q as there is a few i have seen that dont look right what so ever.

I Can appreciate the camera doesn't give a true naked eye finish and there will be times were it would look so much better in the flesh.

Its funny i have an Audi A4 for a 2 day correction now scared to post pics....


----------



## Clark @ PB

Grizzle said:


> Hence why i asked the Q as there is a few i have seen that dont look right what so ever.
> 
> I Can appreciate the camera doesn't give a true naked eye finish and there will be times were it would look so much better in the flesh.
> 
> Its funny i have an Audi A4 for a 2 day correction now scared to post pics....


haha!

Just leave the plates as they are and say your photoshop broke


----------



## Grizzle

rmorgan84 said:


> To whom ever the mod is who moved this to photography zone, can we have it moved back please. It's a good subject for discussion and although it's about photography to a certain extent it is more appropriate to have it in off topic or detailing chat. The photography aspect is second fiddle to the subject of detailers potentially misleading customers and as such should get as much attention as possible, not hid away in a little visited section fo the forum.


Yeh would also like to see it put back Shaun


----------



## Grizzle

Clark said:


> haha!
> 
> Just leave the plates as they are and say your photoshop broke


haha i struggle to even remove the plates..

Its not photoshop i use its.....dare i say a program called ..... (i'm going to regret this i really am) GIMP  it took me best part of an hour to work out how to remove plates even then it could be better than some kid drawing over it lmao.


----------



## rr dave

I was very surprised when I joined a local camera club how much editing goes into a photograph before being put up for show.


----------



## spitfire

Grizzle said:


> Hence why i asked the Q as there is a few i have seen that dont look right what so ever.
> 
> *I Can appreciate the camera doesn't give a true naked eye finish and there will be times were it would look so much better in the flesh.*
> 
> Its funny i have an Audi A4 for a 2 day correction now scared to post pics....


Thats exactly my point. If we appreciate that a picture is not a real representation of what is seen by the eye, then it matters not a jot how the photographer chooses to enhance the image quality. We all know that it will look different to the individual eye. It is a skill too to be able to increase image quality with an editing package and I'd suggest that many on here don't have the professional skills to do it properly.


----------



## Clark @ PB

spitfire said:


> Thats exactly my point. If we appreciate that a picture is not a real representation of what is seen by the eye, then it matters not a jot how the photography chooses to enhance the image quality. We all know that it will look different to the individual eye. It is a skill too to be able to increase image quality with an editing package and I'd suggest that many on here don't have the proffessional skills to do it properly.


That's a good point, however I think if anything is adjusted then it should perhaps be mentioned at the start/end of the write up etc?..


----------



## -ROM-

spitfire said:


> Thats exactly my point. If we appreciate that a picture is not a real representation of what is seen by the eye, then it matters not a jot how the photographer chooses to enhance the image quality. We all know that it will look different to the individual eye. It is a skill too to be able to increase image quality with an editing package and I'd suggest that many on here don't have the professional skills to do it properly.


You'd be surprised how easy it is dougie, we're talking 10 seconds per photo to increase the glossy appearance.


----------



## Dave KG

Clark said:


> That's a good point, however I think if anything is adjusted then it should perhaps be mentioned at the start/end of the write up etc?..


Yes, I think this should definitely be the case... Something I will certainly be doing from now on, even if it is just a case of "resized maintaining aspect ratio, and no other editing".

I do accept that the camera will not always capture what the eye sees, SLRs are much better I find for doing this which is why I use an SLR all the time, even doing pics of swirls during the detail... Manual focus is great too for getting RDS in pics, and showing the removal (or lack of removal as its not always possible to shift them) of them.

But I still do not believe in editing of photographs to the extent of adjusting colours to enhance the shine, even if it did look better in the flesh - you cannot calibrate how you thought it looked vs. how you want it to look and adjust accordingly. Pictures should be left alone for representing the finish, and then perhaps some fun ones as well, but clearly stating what editing has taken place.


----------



## spitfire

Clark said:


> That's a good point, however I think if anything is adjusted then it should perhaps be mentioned at the start/end of the write up etc?..


All that would be doing is stating the obvious. I mean if each poster said, " these photographs have been digitally enhanced to, as near as possible, recreate what my eye has seen" , would be a complete waste of time IMO as no photograph can capture the 3D view that the eye sees.


----------



## DE 1981

Yeh i think there are definatly a few PS 'experts' on here, personally i dont have the time to even attempt anything in PS and couldnt even if i wanted as i have no clue how to use it and dont really feel the need to learn.

I think its the techno times we live in very hard to know whats a genuine pic or not.

Gav


----------



## Clark @ PB

spitfire said:


> All that would be doing is stating the obvious. I mean if each poster said, " these photographs have been digitally enhanced to, as near as possible, recreate what my eye has seen" , would be a complete waste of time IMO as no photograph can capture the 3D view that the eye sees.


Again, a very good point.

I'm in no way clued up in the way of photography but we have noticed that Rich's SLR does a pretty damn good job of showing what the eye sees in the final pics, hence why all our after pics are taken with it and the befores with my crappy compact (i'm too scared I drop his in a bucket of water!), although I now have a better compact so hopefully the before's will be a bit better quality!


----------



## Sandro

i always shoot my photos in RAW then if anything only adjust the white balance. nothing else, as said its just cheating yourself, then if you get found out you look like a right boaby!


----------



## spitfire

Dave KG said:


> Yes, I think this should definitely be the case... Something I will certainly be doing from now on, even if it is just a case of "resized maintaining aspect ratio, and no other editing".
> 
> I do accept that the camera* will not always capture* what the eye sees, SLRs are much better I find for doing this which is why I use an SLR all the time, even doing pics of swirls during the detail... Manual focus is great too for getting RDS in pics, and showing the removal (or lack of removal as its not always possible to shift them) of them.
> 
> But I still do not believe in editing of photographs to the extent of adjusting colours to enhance the shine, even if it did look better in the flesh - you cannot calibrate how you thought it looked vs. how you want it to look and adjust accordingly.* Pictures should be left alone for representing the finish*, and then perhaps some fun ones as well, but clearly stating what editing has taken place.


Make that *will never capture.*

What if the picture *doesn't* represent the finish?

I don't think people are thinking this through quite honestly


----------



## spitfire

Clark said:


> Again, a very good point.
> 
> I'm in no way clued up in the way of photography but we have noticed that Rich's SLR does a pretty damn good job of showing what the eye sees in the final pics, hence why all our after pics are taken with it and the befores with my crappy compact (i'm too scared I drop his in a bucket of water!), although I now have a better compact so hopefully the before's will be a bit better quality!


Again I have to say Rich's camera may produce more pleasing images to the eye but it will never show what the eye sees. It's impossible.


----------



## Dave KG

spitfire said:


> All that would be doing is stating the obvious. I mean if each poster said, " these photographs have been digitally enhanced to, as near as possible, recreate what my eye has seen" , would be a complete waste of time IMO as no photograph can capture the 3D view that the eye sees.


Although this partly takes you into the phsychology of sight as well... what you see, I wont necessarily see... so perhaps it is, from a scientific point of view of course, better to have a "robotic" measurement device (camera) to represent the finsih as you then ensure _consistency._


----------



## -ROM-

spitfire said:


> Make that *will never capture.*
> 
> What if the picture *doesn't* represent the finish?
> 
> I don't think people are thinking this through quite honestly


What you will find is provided the white balance and exposure are correct a photo will give a very accurate representation of real life. Bit of photo psychology here. But the reason cars will look better in real life is you are standing next to the actual metal, unknowingly moving your head slightly to admire the finish and get a slightly better angle on that killer reflection or your eyes fixing on one particular object that is being reflected and subconsciously blocking out the less impressive aspect of the finish standing before you.

A 2D photograph eliminates these factors and is actually a truer picture than your eyes give you.

Ever noticed you take a photo of something like a landscape because in real life it looks stunning but the photo turns out to be boring? It's because when you're standing there in person you subconsciously focus on the interesting part of the landscape and block out the boring foreground and sky.


----------



## Clark @ PB

spitfire said:


> Again I have to say Rich's camera may produce more pleasing images to the eye but it will never show what the eye sees. It's impossible.


Sorry, what I should have said was it gets far closer to what my eyes see than any of the other cameras we have :thumb::lol:


----------



## Dave KG

spitfire said:


> Make that *will never capture.*
> 
> What if the picture *doesn't* represent the finish?
> 
> I don't think people are thinking this through quite honestly


See my post above re: phschology of sight, and if we are being scientific about this (which is the only accurate way of assessing finishes, as you use the *same camera and same settings* to do before and after shots)... This may not give exactly what the eye sees, but shows the improvement in the finish using a consistent measuring device... anything else is, to me, bad scientific practice for one, and while detailing isn't a science per se, the use of good practice makes for better representation of what the detailing is giving.

Believe me, I am thinking this through very carefully


----------



## Clark @ PB

Dave KG said:


> See my post above re: phschology of sight, and if we are being scientific about this (which is the only accurate way of assessing finishes, as you use the *same camera and same settings* to do before and after shots)... This may not give exactly what the eye sees, but shows the improvement in the finish using a consistent measuring device... anything else is, to me, bad scientific practice for one, and while detailing isn't a science per se, the use of good practice makes for better representation of what the detailing is giving.
> 
> Believe me, I am thinking this through very carefully


I get what you're saying Dave and whole heartedly agree, although as I tend to swap camera for before and afters I guess the consistent aspect of things isnt as consistent as it could be in my own details, but I think what Spitfire is trying to say is that no matter how good the camera is, it will never accurately replicate what the human eye sees?

But to tell you the truth I dont know why the hell I'm getting involved with a photography discusion cos I know F all about it in all honesty...:lol:


----------



## spitfire

Dave KG said:


> Although this partly takes you into the phsychology of sight as well... what you see, I wont necessarily see... so perhaps it is, from a scientific point of view of course, better to have a "robotic" measurement device (camera) to represent the finsih as you then ensure _consistency._


As long as each robotic device (camera) is calibrated to give the same results we would then have a basis to work from. Whist not giving a true reflection, at least each individual starts from the same vantage point.

Free Nikons from DW anyone. Make that D90s please everyone must shoot on AUTO and no cheating please:lol:


----------



## Dave KG

spitfire said:


> As long as each robotic device (camera) is calibrated to give the same results we would then have a basis to work from. Whist not giving a true reflection, at least each individual starts from the same vantage point.
> 
> Free Nikons from DW anyone. Make that D90s please everyone must shoot on AUTO and no cheating please:lol:


Not necessarily... so long as the camera used is consistent throughout, it will represent the changes to the finish.


----------



## Clark @ PB

Think we should all resort to good old brass rubbings and then no one can complain! anyone got paper big enough to cover a whole car??


----------



## Dave KG

Clark said:


> I get what you're saying Dave and whole heartedly agree, although as I tend to swap camera for before and afters I guess the consistent aspect of things isnt as consistent as it could be in my own details, but I think what Spitfire is trying to say is that no matter how good the camera is, it will never accurately replicate what the human eye sees?
> 
> But to tell you the truth I dont know why the hell I'm getting involved with a photography discusion cos I know F all about it in all honesty...:lol:


Well, the issue with using an SLR in befores is Wheel Cleaners and lenses dont mix  So I am always hyper aware and have my lenses well protected when using them during all stages of a detail... a compact is far more, well, you can be a little less protective of it


----------



## Clark @ PB

Dave KG said:


> Well, the issue with using an SLR in befores is Wheel Cleaners and lenses dont mix  So I am always hyper aware and have my lenses well protected when using them during all stages of a detail... a compact is far more, well, you can be a little less protective of it


indeed! My old Nikon compact was dropped 3 or 4 times and even found itself submerged in a bucket of shampoo plus, still survived mind you!


----------



## spitfire

Dave KG said:


> Not necessarily... so long as the camera used is consistent throughout, it will represent the changes to the finish.


In a controled lighting environment yes., but not nescesarilly if shooting out doors.


----------



## SURFERROSA

Grizzle said:


> Use a Photoshop type program when posting their work?
> 
> The last few weeks i have noticed a number of people use it to make colours more vibrant and to add "effects" to the picture.


Got any examples Graham? I've not been on here much and can't be bothered looking through the details posted up to try and work out where these effects have been used. Would be interesting to see. Cheers:thumb:


----------



## Grizzle

SURFERROSA said:


> Got any examples Graham? I've not been on here much and can't be bothered looking through the details posted up to try and work out where these effects have been used. Would be interesting to see. Cheers:thumb:


Sadly i'm not John, dont wanna be liable for slander etc :lol:

its a nice debate though i'm enjoying the different points.


----------



## p1tse

i agree with the post. 

i know before Digital age, photographers managed to do similar effects on post processing while printing.

but as above, it gives a false sense of true finish in most cases, where people have managed to do some clever and neat tricks in photoshop

i think people should post original jpeg picks and converted photoshop ones

however i do know each camera jpeg output may be different, but it gives a truer picture in most cases.

however don't stop on the photoshop, as even minor tweaks can give a better finish or some neat tricks


----------



## SURFERROSA

sURELY IT WON'T BE SLANDEROUS?!!!


----------



## spitfire

rmorgan84 said:


> What you will find is provided the white balance and exposure are correct a photo will give a very accurate representation of real life. Bit of photo psychology here. But the reason cars will look better in real life is you are standing next to the actual metal, unknowingly moving your head slightly to admire the finish and get a slightly better angle on that killer reflection or your eyes fixing on one particular object that is being reflected and subconsciously blocking out the less impressive aspect of the finish standing before you.
> 
> A 2D photograph eliminates these factors and is actually a truer picture than your eyes give you.
> 
> Ever noticed you take a photo of something like a landscape because in real life it looks stunning but the photo turns out to be boring? It's because when you're standing there in person you subconsciously focus on the interesting part of the landscape and block out the boring foreground and sky.


Much of what you say, I agree with but, how many times have you had a blown highlight in a photograph which totally ruined the image. Due to the narrow band width that a camera can capture light and the movement which you mentioned above, I firmly believe the eye and brain can process the information available to create a better overall picture. No amount of photographic enhancement can achieve this. People posting their work in the showroom can never reveal how great or bad looking a car looks in the flesh. We can imagine sometimes, but never really appreciate.


----------



## -ROM-

yeah that's why i mentioned getting the exposure and white balance correct. 

If i were posting my details up as a professional, i'd be doing all my afters shots outside and using a hand held light meter in order to get a true exposure, a camera's meter isn't accurate enough.


----------



## Trist

I only use photoshop for resizing and plate blanking. But I did a mistake of taking pictures of the VXR in JPG on the camera on Thursday for my machine polishing post, and they came out very contrasty which made them look a tad photoshopped, shame that as I only noticed the error when I formatted the card when it said I've got space for 300+ pics, WTF, should be half that! lol


----------



## spitfire

Here's another way of looking at this discussion. Everyone comments on the stunning finishes that PB achieve and it's true, their works looks top notch. But, have you ever asked yourselves why their finished product looks so good in pictures? I'll try my best to give the answer without sounding disparaging. It can be no coincidence that they have painted the walls a magnolia colour. They have colourful pictures on the wall, have some natural light and have artifical light.

The magnolia coloured walls give off a warmer feel to the colour of the cars. The artificial light/natural light coloured pictures on walls combination, indoors, gives off some beautiful reflections which are picked up nicely by a good camera. Now Grizzle, given that most of us don't have those sort of premises, would you say that PB have an unfair advantage or worse are they cheating by enhancing the work they've done. 
I'll be interested in your answer Graham:devil::lol:







Just for the record, I'm not saying PB and Clarks work is not first class, it is:thumb:


----------



## -ROM-

spitfire said:


> Here's another way of looking at this discussion. Everyone comments on the stunning finishes that PB achieve and it's true, their works looks top notch. But, have you ever asked yourselves why their finished product looks so good in pictures? I'll try my best to give the answer without sounding disparaging. It can be no coincidence that they have painted the walls a magnolia colour. They have colourful pictures on the wall, have some natural light and have artifical light.
> 
> The magnolia coloured walls give off a warmer feel to the colour of the cars. The artificial light/natural light coloured pictures on walls combination, indoors, gives off some beautiful reflections which are picked up nicely by a good camera. Now Grizzle, given that most of us don't have those sort of premises, would you say that PB have an unfair advantage or worse are they cheating by enhancing the work they've done.
> I'll be interested in your answer Graham:devil::lol:
> 
> Just for the record, I'm not saying PB and Clarks work is not first class, it is:thumb:


Hence my point about afters photos being taken outdoors and metered with a light meter, level playing field, truer reflection of the work and all that.


----------



## smalltrees

*I cannot resist...*

let me first start by saying, my background comes from 25+ years as a custom printer, in a professional photo lab... my passion for a clean, head turning car is only a hobby/passion/obsession... wink/smile...

I have read all the comments, and all have some validity... 
a simply word about manipulations, if you can see/notice something was done, then you have gone too far... PhotoShop is sold to anyone who chooses to pay for it, but, if you do not understand photography, how light is captured with a camera, the average person does more harm than good, and it is easily noticed... PhotoShop in the hands of the inexperienced, is equal to a rotary polisher/grinder in the hands of the inexperienced... dangerous...

since the advent of digital imaging, there is no longer any "Truth in a Photograph" the camera itself, uses software to adjust, change, sharpen, saturate the scene you are looking at... then your monitor uses software to project onto your screen, and the same file will appear different on different computers and monitors...

the cover of any magazine is considered advertising, so there is no limit, to the amount of manipulation... there is a fine line between color correction and color enhancement... you can be assured that every photo you see printed in today's world, newspaper, magazines, books, whatever media you choose, has been through Photoshop and manipulated in some form or fashion... maybe just to match the printing process and media used to achieve the best possible result... Yes... color is subjective...

one posters concern was that customers might be persuaded by an enhanced image... my comment would simply be, that any customer basing their choices on images they saw on the "web" as being "True and Accurate" could be sold anything... I just might have a bridge or two for sale...

I have noticed many images that have been manipulated, it is a fact of life, in this digital world... when I look at images here at DW, I am not expecting perfect images, or perfect manipulations. It is... after all a detailing site... although I am very happy it has a photography section, I can feed two passions at the same place...

Dave's posts/demonstrations are highly informative and valuable. I can understand his concerns for trying to show the best before/after images... to make the images exact, put the camera on a tripod, take the first image, do the work, then take the after photo, where nothing has moved, camera or lights... this would be a true before/after capture... any movement of the camera or lights, makes the work done have less value, regardless of the quality of the work, because the photos are not the same...

as a photographer, I feel it important to make any photo, the best as possible, from start to finish... that being said, if I was a professional detailer my workspace would also be perfect for taking images... I find it a little funny, when I see a beautiful finished car, with mirror-like reflections, and I see wash buckets, piles of MF towels, soda cans, and general garage clutter, also in the photo... these are the things, I would remove in PhotoShop... not enhance the shine... wink/smile...

again... some advise to those who like to manipulate/adjust/correct/play...

#1... always work with two images side-by-side, the one you are working on, and the untouched original... this will keep you from going too far, as you always need a reference point. 
#2... always work with a quality monitor that has been calibrated, at least this way, you know your images start out the best possible way, although you have no control of the rest of the world...
#3... almost any correction you make, back off the effect by 50% and you will most likely be better... again, if you can see what you did easily, it is far too much...
#4... take breaks often, walk away from your computer, allow your eyes to rest, often times, you will come back, and see you went too far...

smiles...


----------



## bretti_kivi

... I like the attitude expressed above. At the end of the day, what are you trying to show in the photo? It can only ever show what you *want* it to. A true 'tog is very aware of the limitations of the equipment he has and the requirements that the person paying the bills has. You're either taking the shot for "sh**s and giggles" or someone's paying you. And if they're paying, they define the end product, whether it's indirect payment in terms of marketing and reputation or direct in that you're being paid to do a shoot.

With that in mind, I posted a shot the other day from one of Teshi's rigs on another forum. The design guy I'm working with on a book said "give me a couple of hours and a static shot and I can make something very similar" and I said "no, I want real". I can make it look more real, too, when I include artefacts that are difficult to reproduce (like lights).

End of the day? A photo only ever represents the photographer's take on that reality and he has his own agenda. 

Bret


----------



## -ROM-

Just a bump for the people who haven't seen this post since the discussion was started lateish last night and it was moved to the photog section...


----------



## chargedvr6

i dont use it mainly because i cant lol
heres my 1st attempt at it. i used my 70-300 lense and spent a bit of time trying to get a good picture of the moon i was never happy with the focus you just cant see it well enough on the lcd or through the viewfinder









i had to crop it in the camera alot im really impressed with the d90 you can crop a hell of alot and still keep the detail 
heres the same pic sharpened in photoshop


----------



## caledonia

Personally I could not agree more, with the members that say it is deceiving the viewing public. I could not tell you where to start with a SLR or Photoshop. Most I can manage it to remove Reg numbers and resize my picture. Camera is a point and shot. But would love to take this up as a hobby also.

I can see where the comments come from with regards the human eye and correct lighting. But to manipulate picture of enhance them is wrong. What ever way you look at it. 
This is the beauty of digital cameras. If you don't like what you see take another picture. Don't just play around with contrast and enhancement programs.
I know there are a few that will disagree. But this is my opinion.
Gordon


----------



## Rich @ PB

I've noticed the undeclared manipulation too. I think it would be nice of an unspoken rule was adhered to - post minimally edited shots to show off the work as honestly as possible (i.e. resize, blank plates, levels if the exposure was off, plus a maximum of 50% unsharp mask if you choose to shoot soft), and then a full declaration before any heavily edited shots are shown. This is the approach I have adopted, and it seems to be accepted by most people as being reasonable. To go back to the original question, why do people do it, well, I think there are many possible reasons, many of which have been highlighted above. I think it's perfectly fine to have fun with images and to enhance them if you so wish, but I do agree that when it comes to detailing a fully honest approach should be adopted.


----------



## chargedvr6

caledonia said:


> Personally I could not agree more, with the members that say it is deceiving the viewing public. I could not tell you where to start with a SLR or Photoshop. Most I can manage it to remove Reg numbers and resize my picture. Camera is a point and shot. But would love to take this up as a hobby also.
> 
> I can see where the comments come from with regards the human eye and correct lighting. But to manipulate picture of enhance them is wrong. What ever way you look at it.
> This is the beauty of digital cameras. If you don't like what you see take another picture. Don't just play around with contrast and enhancement programs.
> I know there are a few that will disagree. But this is my opinion.
> Gordon


iv got no problem with manipulating pictures BUT if its done to deceive its bang out of order imo the pics i take of my cars are as real and honest as possible when i see pics of cars i look at them as such. like i said iv got no problem with getting creative but the picture then becomes void as a document god im crap at explainin myself


----------



## smalltrees

*Digital images...*

there is no such thing as a un-manipulated image, as your camera software itself has already manipulated the image, regardless the format you are shooting, RAW and of course even more if you shoot j-pegs... all done with software... and yes, all software has an "agenda" so-to-speak... The scene to software to the card, then card to software to your monitor, then more software to your printer, each step of the way it is being manipulated, tweaked, altered, and changed... this is the digital world... it is all X's and O's... wink/smile...

all digital files will need some sharpening, the amount of correct sharpness is determined by the final image... the image viewed on the screen, or the image printed, a printed image will require different amounts of sharpening to match the printer and the print media used... the same file will need to appear completely different, for the web and print purposes...

almost all files come out of a camera with some amount of color bias. either from the camera itself, the age of the sensor, or the chips/cards being used... that is not counting the time of day, if you are shooting a red car, the photo should represent that red car, that may or may not be how it was photographed... and just like sharpness the color may need to be different for web and for printing, as many printers have different/limited adjustments available...

most of the comments have been concerned with the ethics of the manipulations... I am old-school, and feel less is always better, especially if you do not understand the process... I would prefer to spend more time with my camera, than sitting in front of my computer... and yes... I would much rather capture accurate exposure in-camera, than needing to fix it later...

photographs of cars and detailing can easily be placed into two different categories. Images that are showing the details, of detailing, which should be as simple as needed, a documentation, before and after images that exactly match... the artist eye, is not needed... but, more technical skills are needed... and in my opinion, would have a grey scale, grey card, or one of the black/white/grey cards for metering purposes, this eliminates any tweaking... then there are the photos of the car, as the car... where composition is required, an artist eye is needed or should be used, to capture the best image possible... both might be the same car, but two totally different approaches are needed... then I guess you should add a third category, which are just snapshots...

Of course this is also a detailing site, with a photo section, not a photography site showing cars...


----------



## Refined Detail

Only just been made aware of this thread.

I simply use P/S to resize and blank out plates. I'm very much a point and shoot photgrapher and don't really know how to adjust this that and the other - if the sun has ruined a photo, I will maybe click the auto levels, contrast etc button but usually don't even bother with that.

I have also noticed the increase in tweaked photos on here recently and have commented in a couple of the threads but been ignored on this point lol. Good to see I'm not the only one though! :thumb:


----------



## Auto Detox

Interesting read this & good to see differing opinions, I'm not competant with my 400D so just use auto & flash off modes, if I have over exposure or under not really sure  in some pics I want to use I will hit the auto levels button if it's still crap in the bin it goes. I can't see the point in doctoring studio (DW studio) images as the only person you are fooling is yourself & of course some of the other members who are well skilled in the camera art will spot you a mile off

I am interested in this mask thingy (excuse me as I cant remember the exact name) Rich mentioned as I've not heard of it before

^^^ ah found it unsharp mask 

Baz


----------



## spitfire

Auto Detox said:


> Interesting read this & good to see differing opinions, I'm not competant with my 400D so just use auto & flash off modes, if I have over exposure or under not really sure  in some pics I want to use I will hit the auto levels button if it's still crap in the bin it goes. I can't see the point in doctoring studio (DW studio) images as the only person you are fooling is yourself & of course some of the other members who are well skilled in the camera art will spot you a mile off
> 
> I am interested in this mask thingy (excuse me as I cant remember the exact name) Rich mentioned as I've not heard of it before
> 
> ^^^ ah found it unsharp mask
> 
> Baz


It's a simple matter of moving a slider to sharpen edges. It makes the image more crisp if you like.


----------



## Auto Detox

spitfire said:


> It's a simple matter of moving a slider to sharpen edges. It makes the image more crisp if you like.


Cheers mate


----------



## Rich @ PB

Aye, the unsharp mask is a useful tool for sharpening up an image without overdoing it; assuming I'm processing for use on the web, if I want a soft looking shot I don't use it, but if I want a little more crispness a setting of 35%-50% with a radius of 1.0 and a threshold of 0 works nicely. For print, I find a setting of 100%-150% is required to get the same level of crispness in the final print.


----------



## Gleammachine

SURFERROSA said:


> sURELY IT WON'T BE SLANDEROUS?!!!


In agreement, if you have (Graham) some examples then why not show them and give the OP the opportunity to reveal why he felt the need to alter the picture.


----------



## drive 'n' shine

Gleammachine said:


> In agreement, if you have (Graham) some examples then why not show them and give the OP the opportunity to reveal why he felt the need to alter the picture.


+1
Or is it simply one or two people intent on stirring up trouble for the sake of it (yet again!)???

Dont forget a lot of cameras have the ability to 'enhance' the picture before it even hits the PC, my Nikon has D-Lighting enhancement and a whole host of other adjustments that can be applied before taking a shot, such as saturation, contrast, sharpening would using these be classed as 'cheating'??

And for the record all I ever do with my detailing pics is crop, resize and sharpen as needed


----------



## Gleammachine

drive 'n' shine said:


> +1
> 
> And for the record all I ever do with my detailing pics is crop, resize and sharpen as needed


As above, resize and block out plates, about the extent of my editing software or knowhow, the reason I bought a decent DSLR is so I captured a crisper shot with more clarity and depth of field.


----------



## Deanvtec

Just caught this thread, a little late as usual, To be honest Ive been thinking the same thing for a few weeks after seeing a couple of threads where the photo's were altered and manipulated to show the car with a better finish than was achieved, the car in question had been detailed to a beautiful finish and didn't need to be played around with, but with the adjustments carrid out the car looked too fake and noticeable. It was not mentioned either that the photos had been "adjusted". 
I can understand the need for minor adjustments like resizing etc but to add effects like add more gloss or sharpen the pic up doesn't really reflect the finish achieved, we all have different cameras and different camera skills so I can see why some people feel the need to "adjust" the pics but it should be stated in the write-up.
I can see why some people adjust there pics as they do not always come out as the naked eye see's the detail. It should be noted in the write-up.
Me, hell the only thing I can do is blur out the plates on photobucket or colour them in on paintbrush!:lol:


----------



## Auto Detox

WX51 TXR said:


> Aye, the unsharp mask is a useful tool for sharpening up an image without overdoing it; assuming I'm processing for use on the web, if I want a soft looking shot I don't use it, but if I want a little more crispness a setting of 35%-50% with a radius of 1.0 and a threshold of 0 works nicely. For print, I find a setting of 100%-150% is required to get the same level of crispness in the final print.


Cheers Rich just been playing with this & boy can you go over board with it :lol:


----------



## spitfire

I think some people are still missing the point. The minute you press the shutter button you are capturing a representation of the real thing. Editing the photograph is just creating another representation, which may or may not be closer to what the eye saw. I would not think of posting a picture on this site without editing of some sort as I shoot everything in RAW for that purpose. I don't do this to deceive but rather to make the picture nicer for the viewer. I have only been editing since I got my DSLR at the beginning of the year so to my knowledge I've yet to *deceive anyone* with detail pictures.


----------



## VIPER

At the end of the day there's never going to be any way of 'policing' this and some people will 'tweek' their photos and some won't. Personally, I've got absolutely no problem with this whatsoever, as any picture on here is only ever going to be a representation of what it actually looks like in the flesh. If people, for whatever reason (camera skills, equipment used etc.), need to slightly alter their photos to more accurately represent what they're seeing with their naked eye, then fine. 

Does it really matter? is the question I'd pose - even in cases where someone's overdone it and the resulting pictures flatter their detailing skills, rather than it being done for the reason stated previously, as long as they're not trying to gain work from it, it's irrelavent imo. They're only kidding themselves and it's not like anyone's going to say to them when seeing their car in the flesh "this is no where near as good as it looked in your pics on DW". 

The only group who would stand to gain anything by this are the pros, and I honestly believe that non of them manipulate or enhance their photos on here outside of cropping and a little sharpening. As a few of the guys have said, to overly enhance their work on here would be plain crazy, as they'd soon get found out when customers viewed cars they'd detailed with their own eyes. The resulting fallout and adverse effect to business from attempting to deceive potential customers, just makes the whole idea of even thinking about doing it on a site with the exposure of DW, ridiculous quite frankly.


----------



## ayrshireteggy

Pit Viper said:


> Does it really matter? is the question I'd pose - even in cases where someone's overdone it and the resulting pictures flatter their detailing skills, rather than it being done for the reason stated previously, as long as they're not trying to gain work from it, it's irrelavent imo. They're only kidding themselves and it's not like anyone's going to say to them when seeing their car in the flesh "this is no where near as good as it looked in your pics on DW".


Personally, I think it does matter. There could be DW members who view someone else's heavily-edited showroom work and think "wow, I'd love to get a shine like that". This may lead to members on here purchasing products that they think are going to give an exceptional shine because they have seen the 'great results' of this product in posts. Or, some members may be left thinking that they are doing something wrong because they are not achieving the 'superb results' that they may be seeing in some posts. Both of these scenarios are not beneficial to DW members.


----------



## VIPER

ayrshireteggy said:


> Personally, I think it does matter. There could be DW members who view someone else's heavily-edited showroom work and think "wow, I'd love to get a shine like that". This may lead to members on here purchasing products that they think are going to give an exceptional shine because they have seen the 'great results' of this product in posts. Or, some members may be left thinking that they are doing something wrong because they are not achieving the 'superb results' that they may be seeing in some posts. Both of these scenarios are not beneficial to DW members.


Okay then, how would you propose that problem is tackled?

As I said, it's impossible to have any kind of enforcable rules on this, so we either have to all trust each other to post up pictures that accurately represent what we've done, or have a situation where every photo thread makes a mandatory requiremment to state in full detail (no pun) exactly all the post editing stages otherwise the thread gets removed. Clearly that's never going to happen and it would be ridiculous.

I hear what you're saying, but with any given picture, unless the person who's questioning the validity of what they're seeing, has viewed the car in the flesh, who are they to say it's not representative of what it actually looks like?

Even posing this question in the first place was a non starter for me, as it's a totally unsolvable situation - we either trust each other or we don't, and in the case of the latter, then frankly, I don't know what validity *any* photo thread would ever have on here.


----------



## Scotty B

Maybe some of us shoot RAW and have no option.


----------



## spitfire

I agree, anyone who books a detail or orders products based on a few pictures and without seeing their results in the flesh is clearly off their chump:lol:


----------



## buckas

is this about detailing pics/write up shots - or photographs in general?


----------



## VIPER

buckas said:


> is this about detailing pics/write up shots - or photographs in general?


As far as this discussion is concerned it's the detailing write up pics.


----------



## VIPER

spitfire said:


> I agree, anyone who books a detail or orders products based on a few pictures and without seeing their results in the flesh is clearly off their chump:lol:


Also, most people are going to post and ask about products/services if they are at all unsure (or at least do some reading and research). And this being the busy forum and knowledge centre it is, they'll get plenty of feedback and info to influence their purchasing decision one way or another. I honestly doubt whether people would buy products or book detailing services _purely_ based on just looking at pictures on here.


----------



## Bigpikle

its a complex topic IMHO...

Its also about ethics. Using a photo editor to alter the appearance of a picture in order to misrepresent the work done is simply unethical, and hence wrong. It's deceit.

Using an editing programme to correct something that 'looks' wrong in a picture but not in reality, is something different. I'll give you an example. We did a few details recently that were in a fairly poorly lit unit. We used loads of lights to do the work but when it came to the final pics we had to put them away to cool down so we could pack them. I took dozens of pics but due to the low light levels, many were exposures of 8 seconds or more. One thing that happens when you have long exposures is that bright areas, like light lenses, chrome trim etc can flare really badly. Many of my pics showed flare from areas like this. It also might look like holograms or polishing imperfections to somebody who didnt know what was happening in the picture, despite the fact the paint was almost perfect.

So, should I PS out the flare? Is that 'wrong' or is it simply necessary due to the light levels we were faced with?

In the end we chose NOT to post the details, as I decided NOT to edit out all the offending issues, and to leave them there and post it anyway would leave the entire post open to criticism from people inclined that way. What would you do?

I agree that its blatantly obvious most of the time when people edit pics. I have seen several major details here where skies are the wrong colour, reds are massively saturated in the afters shots and who knows what else has been altered. I even contacted one of the authors a while back and asked about any edits and was told he didnt even know how to use PS. I then read other threads by the same guy elsewhere talking about using PS for non-detailing photos...clearly something isnt right


----------



## buckas

as for manipulation - it's nothing new, they were doing it yonks ago even in darkrooms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation


----------



## TeZ

If your using digital, the whole point is that it is easy to manipulate. Why else would you get a digital camera. To brag that you print from RAW ? no.


----------



## spitfire

Now you might think that i'm doing an about face here but I could see the point in complaining if someone were to use cloning to edit out blemishes in the paintwork that he was unable to correct. Now that would be deceitful, why anyone would want to I don't know, but sharpening and colour enhancing wouldn't nescessarily be wrong if all the pictures were treated in the same way. Really though, only the poster will know if he's trying to deceive or as BigP points out, is found out later to be lying.


----------



## VIPER

I reckon we ought to leave it be now, it's been a very good and interesting discussion, but as there's no solution to it and it's impossible to tell who's doing it to excess and who's merely using editing to slightly increase the accuracy of their work on screen, I can't see a satisfactory 'end point' to it.

If people want to post up what photo editing/enhancements they've done, then feel free to do so if you consider it's significantly altering the pictures. But if they're simply resizing, sharpening a bit and adjusting the white balance a touch, to more accurately match what their eye sees to what's on the screen for example, then they shouldn't feel they have to say so every time they post a detail thread.


----------



## smalltrees

*unless I see the film...*

I will automatically assume, that any, and all digital images have been tweaked in one form or another. Then again... if you saw it, or read it on the "world wide web" in must be the truth... yes? wink/smile...


----------

