Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Photoshop's "Dehaze"
Doug Strickland, Photographer
Chattanooga | TN | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 06.16.15
->> It looks like Photoshop and Lightroom are about to add a "dehaze" feature:

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/16/dehaze-comes-to-adobe-photoshop-and-lightro.../

I'm curious to know what everyone's thoughts are about the ethics of using this tool for news photos. My first instinct is always to be conservative about anything that involves editing. I can see how it could be used to clean up messy photos, but if the haze exists in the scene and not as a result of something you've done with the camera and the angle of the sun then it would definitely be changing the content of the photo. Either way, it seems like a pretty sweeping change that's questionable at best.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Augustin, Photographer
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 06.16.15
->> From what I see it is very similar to "Perfectly Clear", a PS plug-in. I use it for non-PJ stuff and it works surprisingly well.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Davidson, Photographer, Photo Editor
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 2:58 PM on 07.03.15
->> I don't see the problem with cleaning up a photo for haze or smoke in the photo, as long as you don't edit the content or reality of the image. You're just allowing the viewer to see the subject of the photo more clearly. I'm not adding a football or editing out an arm. I'm just allowing the viewer to see what's in the photo more clearly. Is that really a problem?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Randy Sartin, Photographer, Assistant
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 07.03.15
->> It's amazing what it does for fog and mist, underwater images, and football stadium lights.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andrew Brosig, Photo Editor, Photographer
Tyler | TX | United States | Posted: 8:34 AM on 07.15.15
->> Generally, If I'm shooting an image that includes haze or fog, I'm wanting the effect of the haze or fog in the image. That said, ethical considerations aside, I'm not absolutely sure I like the effect. To me, it doesn't so much "clear" the fog. It seems to just darken the shadows in a way that doesn't look natural to me. Caveat - I haven't tried it on very many images. But I still don't like the way the effect looks in a final image. It seems to me I could get the same general effect by burning or by pushing shadows a bit in levels or curves.

I guess I could see a use for it in some applications. I just haven't found one yet.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Novak, Photographer, Assistant
Panama City Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:15 AM on 07.15.15
->> I tried it on some images of fireworks and it reduced the smoke quite nicely.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Karczewski, Photographer, Assistant
Hammond | IN | USA | Posted: 1:57 AM on 07.16.15
->> It's a a hybrid of a large radius USM filter with some black magic voodoo.

I can see it not being OK due to what it can introduce into an image that isn't there. Case in point, I shot an airshow this weekend and horrible haze Saturday. I used Dehaze in LR CC and while it made the planes more visible it put a thick black band around the whole outline of the plane.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jack Kelley, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 9:34 PM on 07.16.15
->> So far, I've found Dehaze works best when gently applied, i.e., at settings of +8 or lower. When pushed, it can quickly render a scene unnatural. But employed with a light touch, it cuts through haze far more effectively that the Clarity slider.

As to ethics, I think a PJ's obligation is to show what was seen by the human eye, not by whatever sensor he happened to carry that day. Obviously, this precludes adding or removing elements or straying from the role of documentarian into that of artist. Cleaning up a photo to make it look like what you saw, as opposed to what you felt, seems (to me) well within the bounds of journalistic propriety.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:26 PM on 07.17.15
->> My stance is this; if you use the DeHaze filter to remove smoke, fog, condensation, yadda, yadda, yadda ... from an image it is no longer a journalistic representation and falls squarely in the category of artistic rendition. The offending vapor was present during the capture and should be there when published as an image documenting an event or moment in time. Using the filter indeed alters the reality of the moment as well as the faith in the body of work created during one's tenure as a photojournalist if not labeled as a photo illustration. If you believe there is no ethical dilemma or miscommunication in the use of this filter even to the smallest degree to achieve a certain aesthetic value, then in terms of photo documentation you are probably part way down that very slippery slope in visual journalist ethics.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Strickland, Photographer
Chattanooga | TN | USA | Posted: 9:51 PM on 07.17.15
->> Thanks everyone for the replies. I'm leaning towards Jack's camp, where light use that doesn't change what was actually there could be acceptable as long as you don't overdo it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:10 PM on 07.17.15
->> "... where light use that doesn't change what was actually there..."

Pardon me, but I fail to see the logic in justifying the use of the filter. If you lightly change what was there using the filter, you have changed what was actually there.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Photoshop's "Dehaze"
Thread Started By: Doug Strickland
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Where do SportsShooter.com members go when in NYC? HERE! ::..