Did you hear this? No Processing!

Phil1 · 12-21-2009, 09:20 AM

That bill will never get by Nancy Pelosi

little laker · 12-21-2009, 01:05 PM

I have a confession to make.

Every photograph you've ever seen me post has some processing involved.

With me the processing always starts before I even grab out a camera. I have to think about the best time and location before even setting up. I then have to decide on what the best setup is. Lenses, filters, film (or white balance with Digital) and bodies are all part of the thought process. Composition makes a big difference as well, and mst be included as part of the thought process.

That's all before I snap the shutter. If I'm shooting digital you just know that I'll enhanse it before converting the RAW file. Even a straight conversion is still a process.
If I don't perform these corrections the lab I get the photogaphs printed at is sure to, the way they want to.

If you shoot film they are automaticly going to make minot corrections, unless you tell them not to. Which is of course a form of processing.
If they didn't the chances are that you'd hate what you see, and never return there.

I don't honestly know if it's even possible to take a photograph without some processing involved, no mater what your shooting. The amount of processing involved should be left up to the photographer.

MRRiley · 12-21-2009, 06:15 PM

Totally unenforceable and even if passed it's most likely unconstitutional since it criminalizes an "inaction" (aka NOT marking your photos) rather than an "action."

Mike

graphicgr8s · 12-21-2009, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Totally unenforceable and even if passed it's most likely unconstitutional since it criminalizes an "inaction" (aka NOT marking your photos) rather than an "action."

Mike

Mike, they are about to make it mandatory to have health insurance, you think they care about the Constitution?

Vylen · 12-21-2009, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Totally unenforceable and even if passed it's most likely unconstitutional since it criminalizes an "inaction" (aka NOT marking your photos) rather than an "action."

Mike

as i posted previously (which is now in a sea of silly posts)... this seems to be inregards to the UK - therefore, what constitution? :P Also, it's regarding advertisements..

and i think its something that will be handled by the Advertising Standards Authority

it all started with this:

Twiggy advert which airbrushed wrinkles out to sell eye cream was 'misleading' - Telegraph

Ratmagiclady · 12-21-2009, 06:46 PM

I suspect the idea is about *journalism.* And content, not contrast control.

eclipsed450 · 12-21-2009, 07:00 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/fashion/03Boyer.html

Damn Brit · 12-21-2009, 07:09 PM

I would assume that any legislation like this would be aimed at photographs included in publications etc. as a code of conduct.
There has been talk of something similar in France, I believe the thinking behind that was to address the issue of the 'too thin' models influencing young women.

Rupert · 12-21-2009, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

I would assume that any legislation like this would be aimed at photographs included in publications etc. as a code of conduct.
There has been talk of something similar in France, I believe the thinking behind that was to address the issue of the 'too thin' models influencing young women.

Britt, you didn't say it, but I know you were thinking of Mama Festus, and wondering if I use Photoshop to slim her down....and it is making me feel guilty, because, I have slimmed her down many times...but just so she would fit on the screen. I had no evil intentions and I sure wasn't trying to make her look like one of those French Fashion Squirrels......But to set things right, so I can have a clear conscience again, here is all of Mama Festus......
Regards!

MRRiley · 12-22-2009, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Vylen

as i posted previously (which is now in a sea of silly posts)... this seems to be inregards to the UK - therefore, what constitution? :P Also, it's regarding advertisements..

and i think its something that will be handled by the Advertising Standards Authority

it all started with this:

Twiggy advert which airbrushed wrinkles out to sell eye cream was 'misleading' - Telegraph

Sorry Vylen... I missed your post. Yeah, looks like a British thing. All it really means is that eventually all photos will have a disclaimer saying

"This photo may have been digitally altered or manipulated to create a totally false reality and you are a stupid idiot if you believe anything you see in a photograph anymore"...

You know, sort of like the "Cigarettes cause Cancer.... " warning...

AKA "TOTALLY OBVIOUS!!!"

Mike

PDL · 12-22-2009, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

I just caught the tail end of something on CNN yesterday about legislators making photographers label any photo that has been "Retouched"? Anyone else hear this? Can you offer more information?
I don't know about you, but out of tens of thousands of photos, I may have two or three with no processing at all....so would I have to go label thousands of photos? Would I have to tell Granny that I "helped her out" with those crows feet and sagging jawls? That I gave aunt Suzie a smaller butt than that huge caboose she is normally sporting? That uncle Henry really has more hair coming out his nose than on his head?
How would you go about this? Say for example, in my PBase, would I put in a line below the photo that says "Here my girlfriend's teeth have been digitally optimized to look white, although in real life they are Pee Yellow"?
Just wondering how we might handle this? If we shot a politician would we be required to post that in reality he/she looked like a giant turd before we processed the RAW?

Someone is trying to take the fun out of photography, aren't they? It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Regards!
Rupert

French politicians want Photoshop warning – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs
French MPs want health warnings on airbrushed photographs - Telegraph

Nothing to worry about here - too many cell phone images.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Rupert · 12-22-2009, 07:35 PM

Thanks PDL.....errrr Elitist. I'm so sorry I jumped the gun and sounded the alarm that the sky was falling, but mostly I am sorry I posted that photo of a real big and fat Mama Festus. I hope she will forgive me, and I promise to slim down every future photo of her I post....cross my heart!
Regards

res3567 · 12-22-2009, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

Thanks PDL.....errrr Elitist. I'm so sorry I jumped the gun and sounded the alarm that the sky was falling, but mostly I am sorry I posted that photo of a real big and fat Mama Festus. I hope she will forgive me, and I promise to slim down every future photo of her I post....cross my heart!
Regards

Goodness Rupert!!!! Whatchu feedin her?????

Rupert · 12-22-2009, 08:55 PM

Purina Pig Starter......good stuff!

res3567 · 12-22-2009, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

Purina Pig Starter......good stuff!

LOL!!!!!!

12-22-2009, 04:32 AM	#25
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by Vylen as i posted previously (which is now in a sea of silly posts)... this seems to be inregards to the UK - therefore, what constitution? :P Also, it's regarding advertisements.. and i think its something that will be handled by the Advertising Standards Authority it all started with this: Twiggy advert which airbrushed wrinkles out to sell eye cream was 'misleading' - Telegraph Sorry Vylen... I missed your post. Yeah, looks like a British thing. All it really means is that eventually all photos will have a disclaimer saying "This photo may have been digitally altered or manipulated to create a totally false reality and you are a stupid idiot if you believe anything you see in a photograph anymore"... You know, sort of like the "Cigarettes cause Cancer.... " warning... AKA "TOTALLY OBVIOUS!!!" Mike

12-22-2009, 07:27 PM	#26
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,128	Ask Ben - its the French Originally posted by Rupert I just caught the tail end of something on CNN yesterday about legislators making photographers label any photo that has been "Retouched"? Anyone else hear this? Can you offer more information? I don't know about you, but out of tens of thousands of photos, I may have two or three with no processing at all....so would I have to go label thousands of photos? Would I have to tell Granny that I "helped her out" with those crows feet and sagging jawls? That I gave aunt Suzie a smaller butt than that huge caboose she is normally sporting? That uncle Henry really has more hair coming out his nose than on his head? How would you go about this? Say for example, in my PBase, would I put in a line below the photo that says "Here my girlfriend's teeth have been digitally optimized to look white, although in real life they are Pee Yellow"? Just wondering how we might handle this? If we shot a politician would we be required to post that in reality he/she looked like a giant turd before we processed the RAW? Someone is trying to take the fun out of photography, aren't they? It was bound to happen sooner or later. Regards! Rupert French politicians want Photoshop warning – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs French MPs want health warnings on airbrushed photographs - Telegraph Nothing to worry about here - too many cell phone images. The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens Correction: 15mm DA Limited (in-camera Pentax Kx processing or post-processing?)	ADHWJC	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	11-29-2010 08:11 PM
its hear realy	captmacq	Pentax News and Rumors	2	03-09-2010 09:21 PM
Can You Hear Me Now? ... Um No.	Das Boot	General Talk	18	02-14-2010 09:20 PM
News We'd like hear what you think of the site!	Adam	Site Suggestions and Help	0	10-29-2009 01:34 PM
I can hear crickets outside	jct us101	General Talk	1	09-08-2009 03:44 AM

12-21-2009, 09:20 AM	#16
Phil1 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: SoCal Posts: 1,292	That bill will never get by Nancy Pelosi

12-21-2009, 01:05 PM	#17
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	I have a confession to make. Every photograph you've ever seen me post has some processing involved. With me the processing always starts before I even grab out a camera. I have to think about the best time and location before even setting up. I then have to decide on what the best setup is. Lenses, filters, film (or white balance with Digital) and bodies are all part of the thought process. Composition makes a big difference as well, and mst be included as part of the thought process. That's all before I snap the shutter. If I'm shooting digital you just know that I'll enhanse it before converting the RAW file. Even a straight conversion is still a process. If I don't perform these corrections the lab I get the photogaphs printed at is sure to, the way they want to. If you shoot film they are automaticly going to make minot corrections, unless you tell them not to. Which is of course a form of processing. If they didn't the chances are that you'd hate what you see, and never return there. I don't honestly know if it's even possible to take a photograph without some processing involved, no mater what your shooting. The amount of processing involved should be left up to the photographer.

12-21-2009, 06:15 PM	#18
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Totally unenforceable and even if passed it's most likely unconstitutional since it criminalizes an "inaction" (aka NOT marking your photos) rather than an "action." Mike

12-21-2009, 06:25 PM	#19
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by MRRiley Totally unenforceable and even if passed it's most likely unconstitutional since it criminalizes an "inaction" (aka NOT marking your photos) rather than an "action." Mike Mike, they are about to make it mandatory to have health insurance, you think they care about the Constitution?

12-21-2009, 06:29 PM	#20
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Originally posted by MRRiley Totally unenforceable and even if passed it's most likely unconstitutional since it criminalizes an "inaction" (aka NOT marking your photos) rather than an "action." Mike as i posted previously (which is now in a sea of silly posts)... this seems to be inregards to the UK - therefore, what constitution? :P Also, it's regarding advertisements.. and i think its something that will be handled by the Advertising Standards Authority it all started with this: Twiggy advert which airbrushed wrinkles out to sell eye cream was 'misleading' - Telegraph

12-21-2009, 06:46 PM	#21
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I suspect the idea is about journalism. And content, not contrast control.

12-21-2009, 07:00 PM	#22
eclipsed450 Guest	http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/fashion/03Boyer.html

12-21-2009, 07:09 PM	#23
Damn Brit Guest	I would assume that any legislation like this would be aimed at photographs included in publications etc. as a code of conduct. There has been talk of something similar in France, I believe the thinking behind that was to address the issue of the 'too thin' models influencing young women.

12-21-2009, 08:02 PM	#24
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123 Original Poster	Originally posted by Damn Brit I would assume that any legislation like this would be aimed at photographs included in publications etc. as a code of conduct. There has been talk of something similar in France, I believe the thinking behind that was to address the issue of the 'too thin' models influencing young women. Britt, you didn't say it, but I know you were thinking of Mama Festus, and wondering if I use Photoshop to slim her down....and it is making me feel guilty, because, I have slimmed her down many times...but just so she would fit on the screen. I had no evil intentions and I sure wasn't trying to make her look like one of those French Fashion Squirrels......But to set things right, so I can have a clear conscience again, here is all of Mama Festus...... Regards!

12-22-2009, 07:35 PM	#27
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123 Original Poster	Thanks PDL.....errrr Elitist. I'm so sorry I jumped the gun and sounded the alarm that the sky was falling, but mostly I am sorry I posted that photo of a real big and fat Mama Festus. I hope she will forgive me, and I promise to slim down every future photo of her I post....cross my heart! Regards

12-22-2009, 08:52 PM	#28
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Rupert Thanks PDL.....errrr Elitist. I'm so sorry I jumped the gun and sounded the alarm that the sky was falling, but mostly I am sorry I posted that photo of a real big and fat Mama Festus. I hope she will forgive me, and I promise to slim down every future photo of her I post....cross my heart! Regards Goodness Rupert!!!! Whatchu feedin her?????

12-22-2009, 08:55 PM	#29
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123 Original Poster	Purina Pig Starter......good stuff!

12-22-2009, 09:52 PM	#30
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Rupert Purina Pig Starter......good stuff! LOL!!!!!!