Is fixing other people's pics good or bad?

[Karl_K]

Here is the relevant section of the terms of use:
https://www.pricescope.com/content/terms_use

7. SUBMISSIONS

7.1 By disclosing or offering any information to us, including comments, computer files, documents, graphics, suggestions, ideas, or other information (each, a “Submission”), either through your use of the Site or otherwise, you authorize Pricescope to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary, including to facilitate the posting and storage of the Submission on the Site. By making a Submission, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Pricescope an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such Submission for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Submission, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

 

[Karl_K]

Kenny here is the answer to your question:
Editing them and posting them without permission is a violation of the terms of use and subject to being banned from the site:
7.2 By making a Submission, you represent that you have all requisite rights to, and are authorized to disclose, all of the information contained in the Submission. You are fully responsible for any Submission you make and for the legality, reliability, appropriateness, and originality thereof.

 

[WinkHPD]

I say offer if they're super bad.

I think Ame has hit the key word, "offer", on the head. Most will appreciate it, but some might take offense.

Wink

 

[kenny]

Only on Pricescope can you ask an honest question only to get lynched for raping, murdering and eating billions of innocent babies … by some of the 'nicest' people.

A sincere thank you to all who offered their answer and their opinion without the nasty and petty personal attacks.

 

[yssie]

Only on Pricescope can you ask an honest question only to get lynched for raping, murdering and eating billions of innocent babies … by some of the 'nicest' people.

A kind thank you to all who just offered their answer and their opinion without the nasty and petty personal attacks.

Jonathon Swift wasn't too popular in his time, Kenny - but of course, unlike you, he wasn't well-liked by his audience and his essay on eating babies was rather more politically directed than your aside here

I had not originally realised that you meant editing strictly of gems and jewellery, and not people, so I've got to retract my tongue-in-cheek response. I think many would be legitimately pleased if you offered to help them with their photos, and would probably ask you more about exactly what you did! But others could - would - be offended, and there's just no reason to invite a hurt or antagonistic response when you can avoid the possibility by inquiring into whether the poster would like your input.

I actually really like the idea of a "photography post-processing" thread wherein people could post submissions and others could fix them and opine on them. You've taught us a lot about how to improve our photography - I've benefitted from your posts on the topic and I use a Canon P&S that's five years old now! - but there's much less out there about how to work with the photos you've got and make them as clear, beautiful, and evocative as possible, highlighting gem and jewellery subjects specifically...

 

[Kaleigh]

Kenny I like you. I think my response to you was thoughtful and considerate. Reponses vary right??

I think a thread where people who want help with pics is a great idea... If you are up to helping all those that's really awesome...

 

[GemFever]

I just can't imagine a poster thinking -- Oh, you took my completely yellow photo and balanced the colors and made it look better and more true to life? How Dare You!!!



I doubt Kenny would be taking people's glamour shots and artistic photos and editing them left and right. So often people mention that they're struggling with taking a photo of a diamond or other gemstone but they still want to share images. My guess is that these are the kinds of photos under discussion here.

In any case, better be safe than sorry and just offer to help. And that's a very generous offer!

 

[decodelighted]

If I post a full body shot can you make me a Swimsuit Cover model?

 

[yssie]

If I post a full body shot can you make me a Swimsuit Cover model?

Oy, I called first dibs on the body mods

 

[LoversKites]

I also thought at first that you were talking about photoshopping people.

But I would be grateful if you would fix one of my badly taken gem pics, Kenny.

I just can't imagine a poster thinking -- Oh, you took my completely yellow photo and balanced the colors and made it look better and more true to life? How Dare You!!!

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[WinkHPD]

I have access to Photoshop, but because people are so sensitive about Photoshopping, I've only ever used the crop feature.
Now that I see that people are open to other changes, I may do so with a note that it's been changed.

They are sensitive because they are poorly informed.
Let fix that.
The 'ethics' of Photoshopping is a sooooorely-misunderstood topic here on Pricescope.
This is perhaps understandable considering Photoshop now makes it so easy for naughty vendors to deceive us by manipulating gem pics.
I have discussed the legitimate use of Photoshop many times but this thread is the perfect place to explain it again.

There is nothing sacred, honest, pure or superior about what comes directly out of a camera.
All pictures are lies; they are only two dimensional whereas the world is three dimensional.
You don't have to explain that your photos are only two dimensional, and you don't have to explain ethical return-to-truth use of Photoshop.

As I explained in a post above even the best camera, with the best lighting, used by the best photographer often produces pics that do not look true to life.
This is because the equipment itself is not perfect and never will be.
I see Photography as a two-step process and the camera can only do step 1.

Using Photoshop to bring such pics back to what you know to be more honest and truthful is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And no, you don't have to explain, justify or even disclose honest Photoshopping any more than you'd have to disclose whether you selected your fancy camera's center-weighting vs. its spot-weighting vs. its full-frame averaging exposure setting.

I learned photography in the 70s with film cameras and no Photoshop.
Even back then we controlled how the final results would look by how we developed the film, exposed the paper, and processed the paper to achieve the results we wanted.
Then there was retouching the print with a tiny brush and Spotone dye.

Vendors do not want to talk about their Photoshop use precisely because Psers are so misinformed and sensitive about it, but I'm certain that many, probably most, of them DO Photoshop with the goal of more truthful pics, not pics that deceive or lie to make the gem look better.

BTW, my DSLR has a feture which brightens up every pic it takes while the pic is being taken.
I could set that and never have to use Photoshop.
Then I could brag I never Photoshop but really, is it really morally superior to adjust adjust the exposure before taking the pic instead of after?
So much of the negative broad brush people paint Photoshop use with is just lack of education.
So I'm educating.

Photoshop is just another tool, like a telephone or a car.
A car can be used as a get-away car in a bank robbery or to deliver food to a charity.
That does not make the car good or bad.

Kenny,

You hit so many things square on the head here.

Photoshop is a vital tool to most of us who sell on the internet, not to deceive but to demonstrate.

I am going to post a before and an after picture here. I doubt that they will fit side by side but it would be nice if they would.

Here is the first as it came out of my camera and was cropped. Notice that the focus seems just a little soft. Still a nice picture, but seen through a soft fog. In the photo directly below it I have sharpened the photo and now the entire photo is crisp and sharp, much more attractive with nothing deceptive done to the subject in any fashion. In fact the "PHOTOSHOPPED" picture is much more true to the lifelike appearance of the subject.





I would strongly agree with you Kenny, that Photoshop is not a bad thing, it is a tool that can actually help us tell the whole truth. At least as much as can be told with a camera.

Wink

Wink

 

[Roxy]

I have access to Photoshop, but because people are so sensitive about Photoshopping, I've only ever used the crop feature.
Now that I see that people are open to other changes, I may do so with a note that it's been changed.

They are sensitive because they are poorly informed.
Let fix that.
The 'ethics' of Photoshopping is a sooooorely-misunderstood topic here on Pricescope.
This is perhaps understandable considering Photoshop now makes it so easy for naughty vendors to deceive us by manipulating gem pics.
I have discussed the legitimate use of Photoshop many times but this thread is the perfect place to explain it again.

There is nothing sacred, honest, pure or superior about what comes directly out of a camera.
All pictures are lies; they are only two dimensional whereas the world is three dimensional.
You don't have to explain that your photos are only two dimensional, and you don't have to explain ethical return-to-truth use of Photoshop.

As I explained in a post above even the best camera, with the best lighting, used by the best photographer often produces pics that do not look true to life.
This is because the equipment itself is not perfect and never will be.
I see Photography as a two-step process and the camera can only do step 1.

Using Photoshop to bring such pics back to what you know to be more honest and truthful is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And no, you don't have to explain, justify or even disclose honest Photoshopping any more than you'd have to disclose whether you selected your fancy camera's center-weighting vs. its spot-weighting vs. its full-frame averaging exposure setting.

I learned photography in the 70s with film cameras and no Photoshop.
Even back then we controlled how the final results would look by how we developed the film, exposed the paper, and processed the paper to achieve the results we wanted.
Then there was retouching the print with a tiny brush and Spotone dye.

Vendors do not want to talk about their Photoshop use precisely because Psers are so misinformed and sensitive about it, but I'm certain that many, probably most, of them DO Photoshop with the goal of more truthful pics, not pics that deceive or lie to make the gem look better.

BTW, my DSLR has a feture which brightens up every pic it takes while the pic is being taken.
I could set that and never have to use Photoshop.
Then I could brag I never Photoshop but really, is it really morally superior to adjust adjust the exposure before taking the pic instead of after?
So much of the negative broad brush people paint Photoshop use with is just lack of education.
So I'm educating.

Photoshop is just another tool, like a telephone or a car.
A car can be used as a get-away car in a bank robbery or to deliver food to a charity.
That does not make the car good or bad.

Kenny,

You hit so many things square on the head here.

Photoshop is a vital tool to most of us who sell on the internet, not to deceive but to demonstrate.

I am going to post a before and an after picture here. I doubt that they will fit side by side but it would be nice if they would.

Here is the first as it came out of my camera and was cropped. Notice that the focus seems just a little soft. Still a nice picture, but seen through a soft fog. In the photo directly below it I have sharpened the photo and now the entire photo is crisp and sharp, much more attractive with nothing deceptive done to the subject in any fashion. In fact the "PHOTOSHOPPED" picture is much more true to the lifelike appearance of the subject.





I would strongly agree with you Kenny, that Photoshop is not a bad thing, it is a tool that can actually help us tell the whole truth. At least as much as can be told with a camera.

Wink

Wink

Wow Wink, what a great example and what a beautiful ring!! I didn't know that people "fixed" or "photoshopped" any of their jewelry pics, that's so neat. No wonder my pics always look so blah, I'm just clicking away w/ my phone (regular cell not iphone) and uploading whatever I can capture (hahaha). Good thing I'm not in the trade, I wouldn't be able to sell a thing LOL !

 

[arkieb1]

My photography is crap so I would be happy if you edited my pics, having said that some people here consider their pics either their never to be messed with personal property or an extension of themselves in some way (even if they are complete crap) and would totally freak if anyone altered them, so best to ask beforehand to avoid a lynch mob.

 

[yssie]

ETA: I realise this isn't the sort of pic we're discussing in this thread, but as an example - one of the first trips DH and I took as a couple was to the Philly zoo, and I just happened to grab the moment she nuzzled into him. Technically it isn't perfect by a long shot - the colour balance is whackadoo, it could use some constrast and exposure editing, cropping, sharpening... but to me it tells the perfect story exactly as it is - soft, warm, and asymmetric. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone offered to edit this pic, but I would politely decline.



ETA: I really hate how PS washes photos out

 

[yssie]

I have access to Photoshop, but because people are so sensitive about Photoshopping, I've only ever used the crop feature.
Now that I see that people are open to other changes, I may do so with a note that it's been changed.

They are sensitive because they are poorly informed.
Let fix that.
The 'ethics' of Photoshopping is a sooooorely-misunderstood topic here on Pricescope.
This is perhaps understandable considering Photoshop now makes it so easy for naughty vendors to deceive us by manipulating gem pics.
I have discussed the legitimate use of Photoshop many times but this thread is the perfect place to explain it again.

There is nothing sacred, honest, pure or superior about what comes directly out of a camera.
All pictures are lies; they are only two dimensional whereas the world is three dimensional.
You don't have to explain that your photos are only two dimensional, and you don't have to explain ethical return-to-truth use of Photoshop.

As I explained in a post above even the best camera, with the best lighting, used by the best photographer often produces pics that do not look true to life.
This is because the equipment itself is not perfect and never will be.
I see Photography as a two-step process and the camera can only do step 1.

Using Photoshop to bring such pics back to what you know to be more honest and truthful is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And no, you don't have to explain, justify or even disclose honest Photoshopping any more than you'd have to disclose whether you selected your fancy camera's center-weighting vs. its spot-weighting vs. its full-frame averaging exposure setting.

I learned photography in the 70s with film cameras and no Photoshop.
Even back then we controlled how the final results would look by how we developed the film, exposed the paper, and processed the paper to achieve the results we wanted.
Then there was retouching the print with a tiny brush and Spotone dye.

Vendors do not want to talk about their Photoshop use precisely because Psers are so misinformed and sensitive about it, but I'm certain that many, probably most, of them DO Photoshop with the goal of more truthful pics, not pics that deceive or lie to make the gem look better.

BTW, my DSLR has a feture which brightens up every pic it takes while the pic is being taken.
I could set that and never have to use Photoshop.
Then I could brag I never Photoshop but really, is it really morally superior to adjust adjust the exposure before taking the pic instead of after?
So much of the negative broad brush people paint Photoshop use with is just lack of education.
So I'm educating.

Photoshop is just another tool, like a telephone or a car.
A car can be used as a get-away car in a bank robbery or to deliver food to a charity.
That does not make the car good or bad.

Kenny,

You hit so many things square on the head here.

Photoshop is a vital tool to most of us who sell on the internet, not to deceive but to demonstrate.

I am going to post a before and an after picture here. I doubt that they will fit side by side but it would be nice if they would.

Here is the first as it came out of my camera and was cropped. Notice that the focus seems just a little soft. Still a nice picture, but seen through a soft fog. In the photo directly below it I have sharpened the photo and now the entire photo is crisp and sharp, much more attractive with nothing deceptive done to the subject in any fashion. In fact the "PHOTOSHOPPED" picture is much more true to the lifelike appearance of the subject.





I would strongly agree with you Kenny, that Photoshop is not a bad thing, it is a tool that can actually help us tell the whole truth. At least as much as can be told with a camera.

Wink

Wink

PS ate my post! Bah.

As I was saying... This is a great series of posts and a great example.

I bought a cheapy bottle of nailpolish at CVS this morning. I took it of the bag and dropped it in my purse on the way to the car, and it looked purple. I'm typing this in the den beside the fireplace under old incandescents and my nails are blood red - nothing like the "colder" purple the bottle promised this morning. So... if even my eyes lie, depending on lighting environment, what prayer does my camera have!?

I think people post pics on PS for two reasons - sometimes it's educational, to demonstrate something, and sometimes it's to document something accurately. For those sorts of pics I think post-processing with tools like photoshop is a given... if I'm buying a coloured gem from a vendor I want him to photoshop the heck out of it until it actually looks like what he sees in Lighting Type X, not what the camera averages it out to!

The other type is SMTB-type photos that exist strictly to show off something beautiful. I think this is where it gets tricky... because my perception of beauty might not match yours (generic "you"), and the story I'm trying to tell might not resonate with you, but if it's my piece and my photo then it's my right to choose what face I want to show and what story I want to tell. I think you are a master of telling a story with your photos, Kenny! And while I do think most PSers would welcome your help, I can... see someone somewhere down the line being offended by the implication that your standards for beauty - or ability to depict it - are higher than hers.... (and the fact is, both of those most likely are true)

I guess it's a bit like editing posts? I'm a serial editor. It takes me forever to submit a post because I proofread after submission and hope I get the edits in before someone else quotes it... but my posts tell other people who I am and what I believe in, and to me it's worth my time. I know that people editing their posts drives some PSers nuts!!

 

[WinkHPD]

ETA: I realise this isn't the sort of pic we're discussing in this thread, but as an example - one of the first trips DH and I took as a couple was to the Philly zoo, and I just happened to grab the moment she nuzzled into him. Technically it isn't perfect by a long shot - the colour balance is whackadoo, it could use some constrast and exposure editing, cropping, sharpening... but to me it tells the perfect story exactly as it is - soft, warm, and asymmetric. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone offered to edit this pic, but I would politely decline.



ETA: I really hate how PS washes photos out

Interesting. I saw the photo and thought, "What a sweet photo."

None of that other stuff ever occurred to me.

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

ETA: I realise this isn't the sort of pic we're discussing in this thread, but as an example - one of the first trips DH and I took as a couple was to the Philly zoo, and I just happened to grab the moment she nuzzled into him. Technically it isn't perfect by a long shot - the colour balance is whackadoo, it could use some constrast and exposure editing, cropping, sharpening... but to me it tells the perfect story exactly as it is - soft, warm, and asymmetric. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone offered to edit this pic, but I would politely decline.



ETA: I really hate how PS washes photos out

I so want to add a word bubble for the front cat saying "Get a room"

 

[Sky56]

Wink's photos above are a good example of how I use Photoshop to improve most of my photos, portraits, landscapes also- slight bump up of sharpening and brightening seems to help in most cases. You take a photo that is almost perfect and correct it, it is my favorite use for Photoshop.

Instance where Photoshop use is not right -

~ Selling something using an image that does not adequately represent what it looks like in real life, making it look better than it really is.

The lion photo is great, thanks for sharing. It is a good example of how a non-crispy photo can be beautiful, and its softness of edges is enhancing. I'm a lousy jewelry photographer but good with a camera otherwise and I use Photoshop and Paint frequently.

 

[TooPatient]

Kenny,

I'd LOVE to have help fixing up some of my pictures! They are taken on a cell phone and I have few controls over any settings then e-mailed to myself (compressed?) before posting. I don't have Photoshop so limited on what I can do. I'm also limited on time...
So pretty much all of the pics of sparklies I post are pretty dull and lifeless with the colors really not true to life

BUT -- I think it is polite to offer prior to posting just to be sure the person is okay with it. I can see how some people could like a particular picture as is and maybe be hurt by your changing it.


Oh -- It is very kind of you to realize that not all of us have the tools or skills to get great quality pictures and offer your assistance! I'm always up for learning new tricks for picture taking!