The final exercise of this section of the course is alteration: removing an element from an existing image. Something that was there at the time of shooting is going to be deliberately removed. By removing an object or person from an image the truth is being altered without any doubt. Just how much impact this kind of intentional subtraction has greatly depends on the context in which the original photograph was taken.

 Stalin removed political opponents when they fell from grace, the past was re-constructed. This is wrong , we rely on documents and images to understand the past and its influence on the future. Photojournalists follow a code of ethics that require their images to be unbiased and record events honestly. To deliberately manipulate these images, that purport to be  objective and record the truth , is also wrong.  

 However the art and advertising world have a different set of ethics ,is it so wrong to remove a person or  an unsightly object from an otherwise acceptable image?

I took the image below of two friends, Jack and Alex, at a party and have chosen to remove Alex from the frame. Why?

What if Jack fell out with Alex and did not want a reminder of his friendship , or perhaps a relative wanted a photograph of him on his own? By removing Alex from the photograph I have created a new reality but am I denying she exists ? The intent behind the manipulation is the key , why an individual or object is being removed is of sole importance.


Jack                                                                                                    Alex

I initially tried the Content Aware tool having made a selection of Alex using the magnetic lasso tool ----not very successful!!!



I then used the Clone stamp tool, the Patch tool , and finally the Dodge and Burn tool to tidy up with much better results.

 
Alex
Alex vanishes !!!!
Finally I added a levels and vibrance adjustment.
I think it looks ok and I am pleased with the final result.

I also used the Channel mixer to convert to a mono version. 
 

Part 1.

For the first part of this exercise I had to choose two landscape images taken in sequence to combine into a single image .

Exposed for the sky
ISO 100       F16     3.2 Sec   @ 10mm

Exposed for the foreground.
ISO 200      F16      2.5sec     @ 10mm

I opened both images as layers in Photoshop placing the image exposed for the foreground at the top. I then used the quick selection tool to  make a selection of the  overexposed sky and hit the delete key to erase it. As I chose quite an undetailed and clean horizon line it made the task easier than I expected. I am not sure if I am proficient enough yet  to make more complicated selections but am happy with the end result for my first attempt at combining two images to make a new one. 


Exposed for sky

Exposed for foreground

Final combined image

I see nothing wrong with this type of manipulation , The camera sensor , unlike the human eye , is unable to adjust when viewing a scene such as this. Combining these two images simply replicates how I initially visualized the scene and therefore do not consider it alters the truth. 

Graduated filters are considered a perfectly legitimate method of achieving a better exposure in-camera whilst shooting , what is the difference between using a digital method post shoot to achieve the same end result?


Part 2.

For the 2nd part of the Addition exercise I needed to replace the sky from one image and choose a sky from another image to replace it.

Using layers I created two different versions as I worked on the image.

1.
I opened up both images in Photoshop choosing an image of Caitlin with a very pale and washed out sky behind her. I copied and pasted it onto the image created for the first part of the exercise as it had a more summery sky. 


2.
I then created a duplicate copy layer image and turned this layer off.
3.
Returning to my original first layer I made a selection of the areas I wanted protected and added a layer mask, white shows the areas to be protected and black areas will be hidden. I actually found it easier to make a selection of the sky and inverse the selection.

Version 1.
I think this looks false –the small area of horizon between the sky and sea creates a rather wonky looking line ! 


Version 2.
For my second version I also included the sea visible to Caitlin’s left  in my selection to be hidden. I think this second version looks better even if I have altered the actual reality of the scene. 


4.
I returned to the duplicate copy layer making my original image visible again. Double clicking I then opened the blending options choosing blend to blue dragging the top slider from right to left until I was happy with how the sky looked. The image was then adjusted to reduce any fringing by holding the Option key (Alt on a PC)  and dragging the slider to the left which then split into two. At this point I could release the Option key and adjust my image.  



5.
The final image.
I added a Vibrance and Curves layer.


 



I have enjoyed this exercise , but doubt I would use alteration of this type often. 

Landscape photographer of the year 2012 David Byrne lost his prize of £10,000 (ouch!) and was disqualified for excessive use of digital manipulation, including replacing the sky. 

 
Moving up a level this exercise looks at making changes to a portrait that may be considered to be altering reality. I used a self-portrait taken outside using available light with my face in shade out of direct light as instructed.

 1.
 I needed to make a selection of just the face and then increase the contrast and brightness . Working on a duplicate background layer I used the magnetic lasso tool with a feather setting of 30px in Photoshop to make my selection and created a layer mask. I found until I increased the amount of feathering the editing was very noticeable (it was quite difficult to be very precise around the hairline). However I feel this procedure has actually enhanced the image and as the aim of this part of the exercise was for the image to remain natural looking I am pleased with the outcome. This is considered standard dodging , not a new technique by any means , and as such perfectly legitimate to my mind. I feel I have learned something new through this exercise and would certainly use this kind of enhancement for processing some of my portraiture work. 

Before selection. 

After selection. The difference is quite subtle. 

Before                                                         After

 2.
Making a selection of just the iris and pupil I then exaggerated the colour and brightness of the pupils. Again I just made a subtle alteration and at this point if I had made greater adjustment’s  I feel the image might become a less honest representation but actually still reasonably truthful.



Before                                                                                 After

3.
Taking a further step I then altered the hue of the eyes (my eyes are green/grey and I have always fancied greener more emerald eyes! ) . At this point I think the image started to become unreal and I felt I was beginning to alter the truth. The person in the image was becoming someone different, but is this such a bad thing? I use cosmetics to enhance my appearance, is it so wrong to use digital techniques for the same purpose? My daughter has green coloured contact lenses what is the difference between those and changing my eye colour digitally? However a photographic portrait is usually presumed to be an accurate and truthful representation of that person , at what stage does this type of enhancement falsify that reality? This is quite pertinent for me to consider carefully as I continue with my portraiture work. 


Glossy magazine are notorious for their use of digitally enhanced images that depict models with perfect skin , teeth , and bodies . Any, even minor , imperfections are frequently airbrushed out. Whilst this may be deemed acceptable in the world of advertising I am not convinced too much enhancement  has a place in my own everyday workflow. I am not against using methods to improve my subject occasionally, remove spots etc.  But I also see nothing wrong with flaws and wrinkles and often exaggerate the latter -- a kind of reverse enhancement perhaps. Most importantly I feel a meaningful photographic portrait should show a likeness not too far removed from reality.  

                 Before                                                                                      After                                                              

Original                                                     Final result

 
For this exercise I need to make local, not global adjustments to a portrait image using a manual selection method. The aim is to make the subject stand out more clearly from the background whilst still retaining credibility. This type of manipulation is open to interpretation and is hence subjective, how much is too much adjustment? I personally like very saturated colour, but that is not to everyone’s’ taste. I do not like over manipulated images that then fail to look realistic but as I gradually learn more Photoshop techniques I find myself experimenting more, and  I do enjoy the ability to have total control over the final outcome. 

The original optimised image looks fine to me and I would not usually do any more work than has already been done. As my PS skills are self-taught and I have not had any reason to attempt more intricate work I took quite a few hours before I actually even managed to create a layer mask to work on! Unless any of my images were exceptional I cannot see me performing this sort of manipulation on a regular basis---far too time consuming , I would rather be shooting. However I did enjoy the exercise and became quite absorbed. To make my subject ( Caitlin ) stand out more I increased the vibrance and brightness , made a curves adjustment to increase the contrast, and finally decreased the yellow saturation very slightly to alter her skin tones. Have I improved the image? I am quite pleased with the final result , it is brighter with bolder brighter colour, but that is my opinion, not everybody would agree, its my personal interpretation. 

I made a duplicate layer and used the magnetic lasso tool to select Caitlin saving the selection as a mask. I then created several adjustment layers. 


Before                                                                                       After
Original optimised image
2. +  Curves adjustment
3. + Brightness adjustment
4. + Vibrance adjustment
5. + Levels adjustment to whole image
6. + Saturation adjustment --yellow decreased to alter skin tone
7. Final image
 
Its my birthday today and I have had a Kelly Moore Mimi bag. It is in a gorgeous lavender shade and as well as fitting my DSLR and 3 lenses comfortably I can also carry my glasses, mobile and lipstick.  A black masculine camera bag is so unstylish (!) and I plan to carry my camera around with me far more than normal now. All too often it gets left behind because I really can't be bothered to lug a handbag and camera bag at the same time, I have no excuse now. 

http://www.everleaf.bigcartel.com/



 

I need to find two images from my collection , one with dust shadows, and the other with polygon flare.

Removing dust shadows.

I routinely remove unsightly dust specks from some of my images if needed and find this a relatively easy task and not something I consider detrimental to the final outcome. I have not given much thought to the fact that I am actually altering the content of a digital file. I notice these unsightly spots more frequently when using my wide angle lens for landscape work especially when there is an expanse of cloudless sky visible and even more so for any images taken using my pinhole lens cap , my sensor must be filthy! 



Lightroom has a choice of image retouching tools available and I had a choice of the clone or heal tool for this exercise. Although the clone tool copies and repairs the chosen area it does not blend like the heal tool will using the surrounding pixels.

 I have chosen a pinhole image converted from a Raw file that has ugly black dust spots visible. I was able to use the Heal tool in Lightroom quite easily for this. The black spots (which are not as noticeable here as on my home computer screen and when printed ) are unsightly and I see nothing wrong with enhancing the image by removing them. However I did notice when zooming up close to review the heal adjustments I initially made that certain areas of the image did not look right. Hence I made the decision to not tidy up too much and left some of the lighter blemishes un-corrected: I considered they were not detrimental to the final image.  How much is too much re-touching , when does reality become fake? That is quite difficult to decide and I think will always depend on the image being corrected and how far removed it becomes from the original digital file. I consider the use of the heal tool quite reasonable and in this case I do not consider it has altered the authenticity of this particular image.



Image before removing visible black dust spots. 

After using Heal tool. 
Correction: Polygon flare    

I looked through my photo library and actually had few personal examples of images with polygon flare as I would usually discard them unless I found them aesthetically pleasing. I have chosen a portrait image taken with the sun directly behind my subject and I must confess the resulting flare visible as a line of circular spots  did not concern me too much. The dust removal tool in Lightroom is great for small specks and spots but I edited this image in Photoshop using the Clone stamp tool set to darken and also applied a curve adjustment to the whole image. Although I use Lightroom to process all my Raw images and do slight adjustments in Photoshop I am not that confident in making major manipulations. I even managed to clone the face initially (!!!!) but after an hour or so, and with some fine tuning of the brush size as I worked around the areas I wanted corrected, I was happy with the result. I cloned more of the area than necessary , extending beyond the areas with flare, to make the background plainer isolating the subject making him more prominent in the frame. Although prior to doing the coursework I would probably have not bothered doing this kind of correction I am quite pleased with the outcome. This was a relatively easy correction using the Clone tool as the background was not totally plain, not that detailed, and has slight variations of tone making the end result lest detectable than I felt it would be. I am sure there are scenarios when the correction would become very noticeable if not handled very carefully. To avoid lens flare, unless intentional, the ideal would be to re-compose and re-shoot but I do not consider this type of post shoot manipulation to be wrong or far from the original truth of what I saw through the lens. I certainly did not see or intend the flare to be visible therefore is it that wrong to remove it?  

Original Image

Clone stamp layer

Clone stamp with Curves adjustment layer

 
This section of the course examines the relationship between digital photography and the truth. 

Definition of Manipulation:
Distortion/Forgery/Fiddling/Misrepresent/Alteration/Correction/Improvement/Modification/Adjustment/Tweak.

Framing , focal length, filters, juxtaposition, choice of film if analogue , etc. all contribute to how the final image will appear , and as such must also be considered manipulative.
    

 Image manipulation is not new : A composite image of President Lincoln with his head placed on John Calhoun’s body was produced in the 1860’s. Stalin removed political opponents when they fell from grace, the past was re-constructed.

However with the advent of more sophisticated easy to use software , mobile phone camera apps , and  smart cameras the ability to alter reality, and the truth, has grown. Prior to the digital age non-professionals  would have limited skills in manipulation. 

Aesthetic values versus integrity are equally valuable factors to consider when altering reality: the intent behind the image when the truth is in question is of upmost importance.