Comments on: The use of Photoshop http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/ Just another Blogs.reuters.com weblog Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:12:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Dmitriy Berkut http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-368898 Dmitriy Berkut Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:34:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-368898 Interestingly. Thanks for the information ..)) Interestingly. Thanks for the information ..))

]]> By: James http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-335115 James Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:00:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-335115 Sir, I'm a journalism student, doing a project on this subject now. Can I ask does Reuters has any technical analysis to check if pictures have been altered? If you have, could you give me more details? Thank you! Sir, I’m a journalism student, doing a project on this subject now. Can I ask does Reuters has any technical analysis to check if pictures have been altered? If you have, could you give me more details? Thank you!

]]> By: Craig Cameron http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-334552 Craig Cameron Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:11:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-334552 A picture says a thousand words. A modified picture no matter how little the modification will not say the same thousand words. A picture says a thousand words. A modified picture no matter how little the modification will not say the same thousand words.

]]> By: Cameron Smith http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-332692 Cameron Smith Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:48:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-332692 I think that the entire point of unethical journalism is being missed here. It doesn't matter to what extent an image is manipulated if the facts surrounding the image are completely false. I think that the entire point of unethical journalism is being missed here. It doesn’t matter to what extent an image is manipulated if the facts surrounding the image are completely false.

]]> By: David Graham http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-207227 David Graham Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:08:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-207227 Sorry if I'm a little late to the discussion...I was out taking pictures. Imagine that! Sorry if I’m a little late to the discussion…I was out taking pictures. Imagine that!

]]> By: Peter http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-178527 Peter Mon, 14 May 2007 13:40:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-178527 300 DPI is a meaningless specification without document size, as stated above. In my experience, when I ask a writer what size picture file they want, and they say "300 DPI", I cringe with the realiziation that they are poorly trained. As in this thread, trying to explain that their statement is unclear may not result in the concept being grasped. A better specification is total pixels along the long edge. This is a simple, direct and clear specification. Camera files are typically 4000 or so. When the number of pixels is less than 1000, the utility of the image for publication becomes less. To elaborate on one of the responses above, if an image is 300 DPI, but only 1/4 inch, there are 75 pixels. IF it is 300 DPI but 20 inches, there are 6000. If you insist on the 300 DPI spec, you must couple this with a document size so the number of pixels can be calculated. 300 DPI is a meaningless specification without document size, as stated above. In my experience, when I ask a writer what size picture file they want, and they say “300 DPI”, I cringe with the realiziation that they are poorly trained. As in this thread, trying to explain that their statement is unclear may not result in the concept being grasped.

A better specification is total pixels along the long edge. This is a simple, direct and clear specification. Camera files are typically 4000 or so. When the number of pixels is less than 1000, the utility of the image for publication becomes less.

To elaborate on one of the responses above, if an image is 300 DPI, but only 1/4 inch, there are 75 pixels. IF it is 300 DPI but 20 inches, there are 6000. If you insist on the 300 DPI spec, you must couple this with a document size so the number of pixels can be calculated.

]]> By: Anders Loof http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-156241 Anders Loof Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:20:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-156241 geilerzeit, your writing and info is well. One minor correction about LAB. You said "No one with a basic understanding of color theory and management would start editing a picture in LAB. The LAB color profile encompasses the complete range of visible (to the eye) colors." LAB color space contains a more complete range of colors than all other color spaces. That is why nothing is lost when converting example RGB > LAB > RGB. Dan Marguilous book is very interesting on LAB, LAB hold many strengths in editing images. The L channel permits adjustment of contrast - lightness separate from colors, something that is impossible in any other color space. Interesting, althought perhaps sliding a bit off topic... geilerzeit, your writing and info is well. One minor correction about LAB.

You said “No one with a basic understanding of color theory and management would start editing a picture in LAB. The LAB color profile encompasses the complete range of visible (to the eye) colors.”

LAB color space contains a more complete range of colors than all other color spaces. That is why nothing is lost when converting example RGB > LAB > RGB. Dan Marguilous book is very interesting on LAB, LAB hold many strengths in editing images. The L channel permits adjustment of contrast - lightness separate from colors, something that is impossible in any other color space. Interesting, althought perhaps sliding a bit off topic…

]]> By: Ms Training http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-155640 Ms Training Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:49:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-155640 I wish the celebrity magazines followed the same ethical practises I wish the celebrity magazines followed the same ethical practises

]]> By: geilerzeit http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-155159 geilerzeit Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:40:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-155159 The rules above are a bit unrefined, then again I can understand because many people would not understand if you became too specific. Beyond that every photo is different and requires different levels of adjustment. I think people misunderstand these rules to be step by step instructions. For those familiar with photography and photo editing it is obvious that, for example, the 300 pixel, radius .3 and threshold 0 is an upper limit, not the exactly what should be applied. Addressing the differences between editing programs. Use whatever you like to use. Photoshop was created for digital creation and manipulation, not for photography. However, one can still use photoshop effectively for photos. A couple of additional point of correction for Anders: Photoshop allows multiple edits, adjustments and edits that are non-damaging. You can simply turn them on and off. Actions and furthermore Javascripting allows one to apply the same changes to multiple images. If you do not wish to use Javascript, Applescript, or Visual Basic you can still record actions and apply that action to multiple images through the "Batch" command. You can choose whichever program suits your preference many programs do exactly what photoshop does, the point is photoshop is also adequate. Arguing over color spaces is also irrelevant in the sense that properly constructed color flow will correct problems anyway. Whether you start with sRGB, Adobe RGB(97), or a generic RGB profile it still gets converted to a device independent color model and then to the printer device's color profile, which Anders in the newspaper business is CMYK. The point of arguement about which color space is rendered mute with color management. sRGB > LAB > CYMK or Adobe RGB > LAB > device dependent RGB profile. No one with a basic understanding of color theory and management would start editing a picture in LAB. The LAB color profile encompasses the complete range of visible (to the eye) colors. Since all devices (including computer screens) can't represent the full gamut of visible colors, LAB converts the colors to the profile of your monitor. This is leaving out the fact that if your monitor could represent all the colors you can see with your eyes you would still have problems because your output device (whether it is an RGB inkjet at your house or SWOP stand CMYK industrial presses) can't represent the full color gamut. If anyone is still confused please google a bit about color theory and color management, I know I don't do a great job explaining it. The rules above are a bit unrefined, then again I can understand because many people would not understand if you became too specific. Beyond that every photo is different and requires different levels of adjustment. I think people misunderstand these rules to be step by step instructions. For those familiar with photography and photo editing it is obvious that, for example, the 300 pixel, radius .3 and threshold 0 is an upper limit, not the exactly what should be applied.

Addressing the differences between editing programs. Use whatever you like to use. Photoshop was created for digital creation and manipulation, not for photography. However, one can still use photoshop effectively for photos. A couple of additional point of correction for Anders: Photoshop allows multiple edits, adjustments and edits that are non-damaging. You can simply turn them on and off. Actions and furthermore Javascripting allows one to apply the same changes to multiple images. If you do not wish to use Javascript, Applescript, or Visual Basic you can still record actions and apply that action to multiple images through the “Batch” command. You can choose whichever program suits your preference many programs do exactly what photoshop does, the point is photoshop is also adequate. Arguing over color spaces is also irrelevant in the sense that properly constructed color flow will correct problems anyway. Whether you start with sRGB, Adobe RGB(97), or a generic RGB profile it still gets converted to a device independent color model and then to the printer device’s color profile, which Anders in the newspaper business is CMYK. The point of arguement about which color space is rendered mute with color management. sRGB > LAB > CYMK or Adobe RGB > LAB > device dependent RGB profile.

No one with a basic understanding of color theory and management would start editing a picture in LAB. The LAB color profile encompasses the complete range of visible (to the eye) colors. Since all devices (including computer screens) can’t represent the full gamut of visible colors, LAB converts the colors to the profile of your monitor. This is leaving out the fact that if your monitor could represent all the colors you can see with your eyes you would still have problems because your output device (whether it is an RGB inkjet at your house or SWOP stand CMYK industrial presses) can’t represent the full color gamut. If anyone is still confused please google a bit about color theory and color management, I know I don’t do a great job explaining it.

]]> By: Anders Loof http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-154013 Anders Loof Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:44:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/#comment-154013 @aaron.d Aaron: "You cite Ken Rockwell and think SilkyPix is comparable to Photoshop." Ken Rockwell is a photographic artist with much knowledge on photography. Some photographers like his writing others do not. That is outside this discussion. Silkypix is not comparable to Photoshop. That was not my intention. Silkypix is different. A smartness is that it is a software created with photography in mind. Photoshop is created with graphics and not originally with photography in mind. The smartness with a program such as Silkypix is that steps of manipulation can be decided before processing and can be applied same identic way to other images. However, my key point in this context is that refering to only Photoshop limits the photographer freedom in tools and experssion of reality when limited to monopoly of one program. Was with film the photographer limited to one film?? And perhaps it should be also to one camera and one lens??? After all... wide angles and teles distort reality compared to how we see with eyes... Anders: I am an amateur. aaron.d: "Yes, you are." Yes, advanced. Problem? Professional normally applies when one makes money of something. That has nothing to do with abilities. I also give my full name here. @aaron.d

Aaron: “You cite Ken Rockwell and think SilkyPix is comparable to Photoshop.”
Ken Rockwell is a photographic artist with much knowledge on photography. Some photographers like his writing others do not. That is outside this discussion.
Silkypix is not comparable to Photoshop. That was not my intention. Silkypix is different. A smartness is that it is a software created with photography in mind. Photoshop is created with graphics and not originally with photography in mind. The smartness with a program such as Silkypix is that steps of manipulation can be decided before processing and can be applied same identic way to other images.

However, my key point in this context is that refering to only Photoshop limits the photographer freedom in tools and experssion of reality when limited to monopoly of one program. Was with film the photographer limited to one film?? And perhaps it should be also to one camera and one lens??? After all… wide angles and teles distort reality compared to how we see with eyes…

Anders: I am an amateur.
aaron.d: “Yes, you are.”
Yes, advanced. Problem? Professional normally applies when one makes money of something. That has nothing to do with abilities.

I also give my full name here.

]]>