What do you all think???

[zahner]

i think fastmarc is closest to what the scene probably looked like. the others are too green or too blue IMHO

the background blur is a neat idea

my $.02

 

[Medic0506]

Kudos to you guys for being good with photoshop.

 

[60feet]

i think fastmarc is closest to what the scene probably looked like. the others are too green or too blue IMHO

the background blur is a neat idea

my $.02

I also think that fastmarc's rendition is nice. Unless it was at shallow depth and the environment exposed to lots of sunlight, however, then there would have been at least some green tint, and what the diver (and camera) actually saw probably was not that white. Anyway, not to take anything away from fastmarc; like I say, I like his version too. I decided to leave in just a tad of green to give it a feeling/hint of an underwater scene. The blurring of the background was because it seemed to me a bit distracting and detracting my attention from the two fish a bit if I didn't blur it. I'd be interested in seeing additional versions. Good thread.

 

[AbyssalPlains]

With something like this, after fixing the green tint and decreasing the sharpness and whatnot, I would cheat a little. I would decrease the distance between the two fish (not sure how much, maybe 1/2), and i would offset them more from the background --now you have green fish on a green background. And crop in tight.


Keep at this photo - I like it.

No offense, but if this attitude gets a way, we might as well stop taking underwater pictures, buy some slick prints of that glorious moment shot somebody else was lucky to get at some point and claim they are our own. I mean, come on, isn't the authenticity of how it really was something to cherish? If those fish were at the distance they were, than they should be pictured that way. Why "cheat a little" and show them as if they were kissing or giving mouth-to-mouth or something similar that has nothing to do with actual behavior. I think that's what distinguishes photography from, say, painting.
Most importantly, let's think about the consequences. Next time you see that awesome, once-in-a-lifetime shot, you'll think "Nice photoshopping." Is that what we want?

 

[bluthundr]

No offense, but if this attitude gets a way, we might as well stop taking underwater pictures, buy some slick prints of that glorious moment shot somebody else was lucky to get at some point and claim they are our own. I mean, come on, isn't the authenticity of how it really was something to cherish? If those fish were at the distance they were, than they should be pictured that way. Why "cheat a little" and show them as if they were kissing or giving mouth-to-mouth or something similar that has nothing to do with actual behavior. I think that's what distinguishes photography from, say, painting.
Most importantly, let's think about the consequences. Next time you see that awesome, once-in-a-lifetime shot, you'll think "Nice photoshopping." Is that what we want?

I totally agree. Those two fish were sort of dancing around each other in a circle like that for about 5 minutes just a couple of feet away from me. It was really awesome to watch and meant that much more to be able to capture it on uh.... digifilm???

 

[fairybasslet]

i think fastmarc is closest to what the scene probably looked like.

the background blur is a neat idea

my $.02

I also like fastmarc's color and 60feet's blurring effect. I never thought to do that either.

 

[SteveFass]

Why "cheat a little" and show them as if they were kissing or giving mouth-to-mouth or something similar that has nothing to do with actual behavior. I think that's what distinguishes photography from, say, painting.

.

This is an old argument so I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but here's my take. Why blur the background? Why are some photos a black and white? What about the decision how to crop or the color tone or even sharpness?

The point I'm trying to make is, you take a photo because there is something you want to communicate. The message could be anything - maybe an emotion or just to show something pretty. The job is to figure out what you want to communicate, snap the shutter, and then do your digital darkroom work.

To me ethically its all the same - composition, choosing the right equipment (e.g, lens to create the best depth of field, film or camera that has the right sharpness and color saturation), camera settings to create the effect you want, and photoshopping.

 

[fairybasslet]

.

This is an old argument so I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but here's my take. Why blur the background? Why are some photos a black and white? What about the decision how to crop or the color tone or even sharpness?

The point I'm trying to make is, you take a photo because there is something you want to communicate. The message could be anything - maybe an emotion or just to show something pretty. The job is to figure out what you want to communicate, snap the shutter, and then do your digital darkroom work.

To me ethically its all the same - composition, choosing the right equipment (e.g, lens to create the best depth of field, film or camera that has the right sharpness and color saturation), camera settings to create the effect you want, and photoshopping.

I guess if you don't understand the difference between cleaning up an image and essentially altering the one captured on the memory card, then perhaps you never will. To take your idea futher, why not exhange one of the fish in the photo for a shark or octopus? An UW edition of the National Inquirer with faked photos.

 

[alcina]

Whoa, Guys. Perhaps another debate on "what is too much manipulation" would be better served in it's own thread. Let's keep this one on the topic of ideas for photoshopping THIS particular image as that is what was asked for. Thanks!