Magazine shots and photoshop

[jwil6902]

I've read a number of opinions on this subject, and consensus seems to be split so I wanted to get everyone to weigh in here. The question at hand is how much photoshop work will you do to a photo that you are submitting for publication?

Many photo editors tell photographers not to edit thier work, but there is no way on this earth that I would send one of my camera RAWs in to a magazine for print when my name is going to be attached in the credits. So, how much editing is too much? I know many photographers that extensively edit their photos (Steve Demitt, Winn Ruji, and others) and without the editing their work would not look the same, but the altered photos also don't completely represent what came out of the camera.

I mainly shoot automotive stuff for the Euro tuner market and shots stright out of the camera are never as sharp, contrasty and have the dynamic range I want. This is simply a limitation of digital technology. Techniques like merge to HDR, multiple layers and masks to control highlights, shadows and reflections, curves and levels, USM and many other techniques either need to be done or should be done to get the most out of a shot.

So, all that said, how do you folks feel about it?

Example:

RAW IMAGE:

Only resized, stroked and text added. No other processing.

Retouched image:

Some healing and cloning to eliminate unwanted background clutter, dust and spots. Curves, levels, local contrast, USM, and saturation adjustment.

[Mr. Pickles]

I think the fixes that you did here is certainly acceptable. Of course, I'm no editor. If want less than this, then i wouldn't send it in. I'd think you have the right to do the minimal things like your curves, levels, cloning, saturation and stuff. I wouldn't do much USM though, or wouldn't take it too far. I also would just tweak what was shot, as in I wouldn't change the car color in post to blue.

[grsphoto]

In my limited experience editors say they want raw images while in fact they want almost ready to print. Do your enhancements, except for sharpening, for submition.

Great shots BTW

Glenn

[Blinky]

In my experience, ask ten editors how they want images delivered and you get ten different answers... even if they all edit for the same big publisher. Primedia for instance provides 3 pages of image and ad specs for each and every magazine they publish. The sizes are all over the place but the specs are pretty straight forword, if you can get it into a PDF-X1a format and the color proofs well, it's a go.

Here's an email I received last week:

We'd like to have images of this component for the article. Images
> > should be color transparencies, 35mm slides, or high-resolution files
> > (CMYK TIFFs or EPS at 300 dpi and 5x5 inches). Please send as many
> > different images as possible (inner views and back views in addition
> > to front views).
> >
> > *We'd like to have the images by Wednesday, May 3.*

Incidentally, I received this ON May 3rd. :

I've never had one specify for or against PS work. I retouch blemishes on every image and size it exactly. I always check exposure, color balance and sharpen the sized image.

A while back I did an ad with a shot of a credenza I did in a warehouse and then PS'd a room and plasma TV in around it... even had to change a rosewood item to maple. It looks faked to me but the customers love it and it ran in two different magazines.

Honestly, I don't think they actually know what they want... but they want it yesterday.

Chip

[Jim_Sykes]

Bottom line is you cant guarantee anything about how the photo will ultimately look in print when submitting to a magazine.

All editors have different wants and tastes, you should do what they ask. If they ask for untouched photos, then you need to talk with them and make sure they understand what they are doing and will edit appropriately. Others will allow for minor stuff like levels adjustments and minor color tweaking.

You should USM though, at least not too much as depending on sizes and printers, they will apply different levels of USM based on what they know what their output will be, that is why mags have pre-press guys, to put photos in the proper colorspaces and add USM and other things to prepare for printing on THEIR printers.

You can mess with colors and saturation all day long, but if an editor has a different view of how the photo should look they will adjust it and it still may not be what you were looking for. They have the ultimate decision. If they like the Velvia look they might make your stuff look that way, if they like a more muted look and you have the saturation all boosted up, they may end up de-saturating it to their taste.

Basically, when i have submitted, I do minor levels adjusments to make sure the images are not too dark or bright, I clone out dust of course, I will do any color/WB correction needed, will generally add just a touch of color saturation as I have my camera to be pretty flat out of the camera, and will add just a hair of USM to account for the zero sharpening set in camera (mainly so they dont look at it and think its soft), usually less than 60% at a radius of 0.3 - 0.5. Very basic stuff, then its in their hands and I hope they know what they are doing.

[gaopa2]

In my limited experience as a freelance photographer, I find that Chip is right....each Art Director wants something different. The Art Dir. at my primary magazine gig wants JPG and not RAW and he wants the images straight out of my camera with no correcting at all. One of my other mag. gigs wants correction as needed. I submit my work on CD's. In short, find out from each magazine what they want and the form in which they want it. Cheers, Bill P.