What is acceptable in post-processing??

[lanman]

Some people's pictures on here are incredibly vivid - the colors bright and saturated, and the images so crisp you can hear them snap!

 

I hear people talking about taking pictures in some mode or another, and then post-processing. I assume 'post-processing' is anything you do to a picture after it is taken, as opposed to making adjustments to white balance, aperture, shutter speed, or lighting during the process of taking it.

 

For the purposes of selling corals - one wants to have an accurate representation of a beautiful coral. In some cases, people or businesses tend to 'over-emphasize' the attributes of their corals.

 

So what is acceptable? Increasing/decreasing contrast? Sharpness? Color saturation? The colors themselves? Or is anything acceptable, as long as it gives a MORE, rather than LESS accurate representation of what you see with the human eye??

 

For example: This is an original photo of one of my chalices:

 

 

This is the same image. I used a photo editor that came with a scanner - only minimal adjustments available. For this picture, I reduced brightness (-1), increased contrast (+2), and increased 'sharpness' (+3) - the sharpness change did very little, if anything. I made no changes to the color at all.

 

 

I find the 2nd picture more accurately represents what the coral looks like under my 14K Phoenix bulbs.

 

Is that 'OKAY' if I use the 2nd photo when I post a frag of it for sale?? Or am I a bad boy and a fraud??

 

Opinions?? Methods used?? Techniques??

 

bob

[Mountaineer]

Personally, I think as long as you are attempting to provide an accurate representation that is OK.

[Chad]

I tend to agree that it is generally ok if done with good intentions.

 

If you want full disclosure, though, you could always say what you did with it and why you did it

[sdah0414]

Personally I would only do it if some environmental reason was preventing an accurate representation of the color. When I'm buying, I don't want to see what the coral will look like if I adjust a bunch of settings on my camera. I want to see what it will look like in my tank.

[Mountaineer]

 

If you want full disclosure, though, you could always say what you did with it and why you did it

 

I like this idea even better. Great suggestion!

[ctenophore]

I try to look at it this way. Under promise and over deliver. If you make it look too good, and it arrives not looking as nice, then you will have an upset customer. Other way around, you might miss a few sales but customers will be happy. I think post processing is perfectly acceptable as long as you stay within bounds of reality, and IMO stick to the above mantra. I would rather have happy customers and no stress than a few extra orders and unhappy customers.

[Coral Hind]

^ That sounds like some very sound business sense.

[lanman]

Personally I would only do it if some environmental reason was preventing an accurate representation of the color. When I'm buying, I don't want to see what the coral will look like if I adjust a bunch of settings on my camera. I want to see what it will look like in my tank.

 

'Environmental reasons' in this case is a camera that just won't adjust properly to my 14K lights.

 

bob

[Jon Lazar]

There's no problem with adjusting photos so that they accurately represent the actual corals. But it's really easy to go overboard with adjustments without meaning to, and ending up with a poor representation of what the coral looks like.

 

I think the purists who say it's wrong to use Photoshop to postprocess are being silly. Cameras postprocesses the images too. The camera captures an image then tries to normalize the colors according to its programming, applies filters, automatically sharpens, and does all kinds of stuff.

 

What's wrong is to make the coral look better than it really is to create hype or make a sale.