Photoshop question...

[chazp]

I have a photo I want to use for a cover with reverse text (white text on dark background). The problem is the photo was taken during the day and I need to darken the background as if it was sunset to put the reverse text on top of it. I have one subject in the photo offset to the far right and want to place the text on the left of the subject. Before I screw up the photo, I want to ask, can I make a cutout of the subject and then darken the original photo and put the cutout back on top where it was, so that the subject looks like he did during the day with a darker background? Will it be obvious to the readers what I did? Subject is out of town now on vacation and it could be a week or so, before I could reshot this closer to sunset.

 

[WazzuGrad00]

The answer is yes you could and no you shouldn't.

 

[chazp]

Okay, thanks. So the answer is take the photo over at sunset. I'll hold the story until he gets back to town.

 

[Chi City 81]

If it's a live photo, I'm of the opinion you shouldn't be running text over it anyway. Unless it's a feature photo, then go ahead. You also can alter photos as long as you call it an illustration and not a photo, so I disagree with buckdub on this one.

 

[Chi City 81]

If it's a live photo, I'm of the opinion you shouldn't be running text over it anyway. Unless it's a feature photo, then go ahead. You also can alter photos as long as you call it an illustration and not a photo, so I disagree with buckdub on this one.

I didn't say you couldn't alter photos. I don't think he should alter a photo in that way, though. All he's doing is trying to deceive the reader into thinking it was taken at night instead of in the daytime, and there's no "illustrative" quality to that.

If he just wants to cut it out and/or place text over it, that's fine. But this would be somewhat similar to the LAT(?) photog last month who combined the subject and background of one Iraq photo with the secondary elements of another. He wants to use the background of the photo in his head, with the subject of the photo in his hand. That's not right.

I don't know how important the story is, but I'd say the ends aren't worth the means. Save the idea and use it in a better situation.

OK, I must have glanced over that part of his post. In that case, I agree with you.

 

[chazp]

I thought if you altered something like I described and in the cutline listed it as "photo illustration." It was okay. I've seen an Instate paper that did something similar, and yes you could tell the photo had been altered.

 

[chazp]

I thought if you altered something like I described and in the cutline listed it as "photo illustration." It was okay. I've seen an Instate paper that did something similar, and yes you could tell the photo had been altered.

If you alter it, sure, a photo becomes an illustration.

Maybe you've seen it before, and maybe I have too ... I still have a problem with it. You don't like the photo that was taken, so you want to alter the background. That's not an illustration; that's deception.

I see your point.

 

[CUinthenewsroom]

Is this live action or a portrait? It sounds like it's a portrait. In that case I don't have much of a problem with it, although I do have reservations when a photo is altered in anyway. I guess my thought is that a portrait is already a staged photo, so to change the background and make an illustration isn't the end of the world. If it is live action, they definitely no.

I would try and retake the picture but up to you.

 

[captzulu]

I don't have any ethical issues with trying it, since like CU says, it's a staged photo, and as long as you clearly label it photo illustration, I'm OK with it. However, I would recommend against trying it for practical reasons. Just darkening the background and leaving the cutout as it is will make the subject look completely out of place due to the difference in lighting. And it'll require a lot of time to tweak the lighting to make it seem right, if it's possible at all in this case. If it's at all practical, try to reshoot it.

 

[audreyld]

What if I, as a photographer, shoot a photo at noon in such a way that it looks like it was taken at dusk? Is that any more or less acceptable than doing it in Photoshop?