Whats your opinion on sellers who Photoshop

[undrtkr_00]

 

The bottom line is that if I suspected that someone was misrepresenting their product, I wouldn't buy from them any longer. If I knew that someone was doctering their photo's, then I would state that in the feedback forum to make sure others were aware.

 

However, keep in mind that corals can look very different from tank to tank, for very legitimate reasons; different light spectrums, water conditions, water flow, etc. So, unless you know for sure that the photos were doctured, than I wouldn't risk falsly impuning someone's reputation.

 

These are good points. I have picked up a coral from somebody else's home tank, put it in my tank, and it looked quite different immediately. Lighting has probably been the main issue.

 

Also whether the photo was taken from above or the side is an issue. I bought some zoos online. When I got them into my tank, I thought I got ripped off because the colors seemed off. Then, I looked at them from the top of the tank (the angle that the seller was using to photograph, I happened to know), and they looked pretty much identical to the picture that was presented.

 

I'm not trying to defend people using shady practices to deceive people, just pointing out that there may be legitimate reasons for differences in color, etc.

 

I much prefer to buy livestock that I have seen in person, so that is mostly what I do.

[pledosophy]

I think names shoudl be named. Otherwise this just allows the person to continue to rip people off.

 

JMO

[Algae]

I didn't alter this at all. Wanna buy a bridge?

 

 

I got a bleeding heart Scolly from Extreme Corals that was WAY off. Way duller than the photo. Last time I do business with them!

Coversely I recieved, via Impur, a War Coral and a Joker Favia that were just incredible from Jody at Totally Exotic. Much better than photos. Also got a sweet Bird of Paradise.

 

Here is a screen shot of an exif viewer that shows some of the data that is sometimes (not always) available to research photos on the web. They are really kind of fun (and freeware) and can give you a clue.

 

[Byrd]

It's dishonest - PERIOD (nono) I won't post their name but if you look at their site you can see that the white egg crate is suspiciously blue when showing blue corals and pink with pink ones etc.

 

Good point about the eggcrate-I did not realize that-what a noob I am

 

I think names should be named. Otherwise this just allows the person to continue to rip people off.

 

JMO

 

If I had saved the emails that went back and forth I would post them up-long story short after 4 emails I said "I hear you boost the contrast up so the corals looks more vibrant"

 

The reply was "what's wrong with that-LOL". I have spoke to at least 8 people who tell me this person dose this, others have actually gave me the name before I even mentioned it.

 

but without those emails its all hearsay-and there was no true "Ya I boost the contrast-what about it"

 

I figured most if not everyone was against this-its just been nagging away at me.

Granted I have kept nearly all the corals, as I was interested in the coral, but when its between that person and another selling the same thing, you are (or at least I am) always going to go for the "better" looking coral.-IMHO

[huskerduck]

Another thing to consider , but may not be relevent to this discussion is the subject of Dyed corals.

 

I have a friend in Florida that has a 1K gallon tank and he knows a seller that has different tanks he runs some sort of dye in and produces the most amazing looking corals.........for a couple weeks and then they bleach out and you just "take them back" and in a couple weeks you get your colorful coral back. I had never heard of this and told him he was full of it and he said hes been buying dyed corals for 10 years now and its alot more prevelant up and down the east coast than you would think. He said if you can get a non dyed coral in New York its abnormal.

 

I found this weird, he said hes been in several "Dye rooms" where theres every color in the rainbow in different tanks with certain types of corals

[pledosophy]

IME dying corals leads to dead corals.

 

It was much more common IMO a few years back.

[CA2OR]

I didn't alter this at all. Wanna buy a bridge?

 

 

I got a bleeding heart Scolly from Extreme Corals that was WAY off. Way duller than the photo. Last time I do business with them!

Coversely I recieved, via Impur, a War Coral and a Joker Favia that were just incredible from Jody at Totally Exotic. Much better than photos. Also got a sweet Bird of Paradise.

 

Here is a screen shot of an exif viewer that shows some of the data that is sometimes (not always) available to research photos on the web. They are really kind of fun (and freeware) and can give you a clue.

 

 

I have been looking for a program that tells me details of pic's where did you get that?

[Algae]

Right here, Eric:

http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/index.html

[CA2OR]

sweet....thank you very much. Do you find this app usefull outside of checking if a pic is edited?

[Algae]

Somewhat questionable for casual use. But fun. There are so many ways to alter photos both inside and outside the camera and cheaters will always find work arounds. For the casual cheater it will often tell what was boosted. However, I've had to use photo editing just to get back to normal when the photo WB or exposure was wrong. When it is viewed though it may show as being altered.

What is really interesting is that some of the "cheaper" cameras can make some outstanding photos. Look at some of the old photos of "coralreefaquarist". They were made with an older $110.00 Canon (now $70.00?). Shawn would do it by making sure the glass was crystal clean and getting as close as possible.

[CA2OR]

Nice....thanks for info...I do agree with cheaper camera's getting good pic's....I was using my phone for almost every pic for the past year.

[CA2OR]

I just realized I too edit my pic's....well sometimes....I load them into Picassa and click "I'm feeling lucky" so I guess I am guilty as well....funny....I didn't even realize it. I just do it because it takes some of the haze and such out of the pic's.

[Jay]

I think that if you change it to much its not right but I have the fred miranda pluggin that I have used in the past that just cleans the picture and resizes it so its fit for email size. But this only makes the pic smaller and clearer. The colors are all the same.

 

Adding or removeing color or brightening the color is a nono. Its like common sense. If someone has good morals then they will know if they misrepresent the product and will have to live with themselves after the sale. To me....sleeping good at night more important.

 

Jay

[CA2OR]

I agree....that is the same thing I do as far as a clean up....no enhancements.

[grassi]

I think calling a pic "photoshopped" isn't a good way to judge. I "photoshop" all my photos... I studied graphic design and know how to use it responsibly. I use it to crop and make the colors more true to what they look like in person. I also use it to reduce the size of the image while keeping image quality. I always assume every online seller does the same.

 

I buy online, but I always use the eggcrate rule. If the white eggcrate isn't white or is WAY too white - altered. If there is coraline in the background when there isn't eggcrate, you can tell too.

[reefnjunkie]

I buy online, but I always use the eggcrate rule. If the white eggcrate isn't white or is WAY too white - altered. If there is coraline in the background when there isn't eggcrate, you can tell too.

 

This is good to know, I found that out a little while ago.

 

Again, all the pieces I have bought, I bought because I wanted the piece, its just irritating to find out that the contrast/color etc has been boosted to drive up prices-I can assure you that 2 separate pictures of the same piece will fetch different dollars when one is just eye popping and the other is well- not

I'd love to post up an example of what I think has been altered but these days a lot of sellers (even myself) watermark their images-

 

Throwing someone under the bus is one thing but running them over repeatedly is another

 

[Rick]

As was mentioned above it would be easier to count those that don't edit them. Personally I would prefer to deal with someone that does (especially if they admit it) since it is more likely that the picture will accurately represent the coral. (I would be leary of any that do not admit it) The problem here is that there is a stigma attached when saying they are photochopped as it misleads people into believing that doing so misrepresents the coral. Sometimes it may but in reality simply taking a picture and posting it unedited is also very likely to misrepresent the coral since most of the sellers lack both the equipment and skills to set the camera to get an unedited representation that is accurate. (cameras just are not designed to take pictures through tinted water using normal settings) Like grassi above I'll admit straight up that most of the pictures I've posted are edited. I edit them not to be deceptive but rather to attept to more accurately represent what the eye actually sees. (I lack the equipment to get a close representation otherwise) I can understand being upset when a coral doesn't look like what the picture shows however as pledosophy hinted above those pictures could be just the way the camera took them and it could even be factory settings. I.E. It could be just the opposite of what is suspected. I'm not saying this is true but just that it is possible and therefore it is a bad idea to automatically assume it is due to photochopping. It may also be worth noting that all digital cameras have internal software that processes the image taken to attempt to provide accurate colors based upon the camera settings. The only difference is that the software must guess what the colors should be without the aid of a human eye. Some higher end cameras can be calibrated to take into account the tint introduced by the water and glass although it will still be guessing since the tint is variable depending upon lighting and position. The casual user is also not going to bother trying to set the calibration as it is not the easiest thing to do.

 

Also just because the exif data shows photoshop it is not an indication that a photo has been edited. I take all of my pictures in the raw canon format to start with the highest quality photo possible and then convert them to jpeg to post them here using photoshop regardless of whether they are edited or not. Therefore every photo I post will show photoshop even if I do not manually edit it at all.

 

My suggestion is to follow the eggcrate suggestion as one method but also you can just look at the rest of the picture and it will often give some clues. See if the rest of the picture looks correct. (sand, other corals, rocks, etc.) If it does then chances are better that the coral will look like the pic. If they have an unnatural tint to them then they probably will not.

[new school]

i dont believe in photo shop at all. i think its a misrepresentation of tank and livestock. in all areas. i see these stunning tanks and you can see threads on the lighting changes and the growth over time and believe its a truly beautiful thing. then you can see the final images that are shopped, yes very beautiful but not what it truly is..... the camera is capable of such amazing pictures, you can use better film and lenses, along with light and a nice camera that altering simply is not needed. its just a way to make something look like it is not, and will never be!

[reefnjunkie]

As was mentioned above it would be easier to count those that don't edit them. I edit them not to be deceptive but rather to attept to more accurately represent what the eye actually sees.

 

I'm good with that-

 

Haven't seen you around in quite awhile Rick-Welcome back-(laugh)

[Rick]

.... the camera is capable of such amazing pictures' date=' you can use better film and lenses, along with light and a nice camera that altering simply is not needed. .....[/quote']

I guess I missed something in 25 years of amateur photography then. Lenses can be changed but that will not effect the color. Filters can be used (I use to have a bag with some 200 plus filters but with digital most are no longer necessary) however the only difference is that you alter the photo before it is taken rather than afterwards and have less control. (You must still guess at what filter will give the best results) Film isn't really applicable here at all as we are discussing digital images.

 

Once again this really boils down to the difference between letting the software in the camera (which is not normally calibrated for pics through water) decide the most accurate image or using the human eye to correct the image which will hopefully result in a closer representation of the image than the camera is capable of producing.

 

The real issue in question here is the integrety of the sellers rather than the use of Photoshop. Are they trying to provide as close a representation as possible using what equipment and skill they have available or are they deceptively trying to make it look better than it really does? Unfortunately it is hard to determine for certain which is the case because it is hard to tell the difference between lack of skill causing the difference or from deceptiveness causing it. The stigma about it by itself could actually cause the result to be off because they may be intentionally avoiding any post processing (editing) just so they are able to state with a clear concious that they do not do any editing to the images.

[Rick]

I'm good with that-

 

Haven't seen you around in quite awhile Rick-Welcome back-(laugh)

 

I decided to take a break from the forum for a few weeks. Had a lot going on since my son went into basic training last month as well.

[nwcoralfarm]

I guess I missed something in 25 years of amateur photography then. Lenses can be changed but that will not effect the color. Filters can be used (I use to have a bag with some 200 plus filters but with digital most are no longer necessary) however the only difference is that you alter the photo before it is taken rather than afterwards and have less control. (You must still guess at what filter will give the best results) Film isn't really applicable here at all as we are discussing digital images.

 

Once again this really boils down to the difference between letting the software in the camera (which is not normally calibrated for pics through water) decide the most accurate image or using the human eye to correct the image which will hopefully result in a closer representation of the image than the camera is capable of producing.

 

The real issue in question here is the integrety of the sellers rather than the use of Photoshop. Are they trying to provide as close a representation as possible using what equipment and skill they have available or are they deceptively trying to make it look better than it really does? Unfortunately it is hard to determine for certain which is the case because it is hard to tell the difference between lack of skill causing the difference or from deceptiveness causing it. The stigma about it by itself could actually cause the result to be off because they may be intentionally avoiding any post processing (editing) just so they are able to state with a clear concious that they do not do any editing to the images.

 

I am really with Rick on this. If I do any photo editing it's because the camera I have to take the pics with provides a very lackluster representation that is not at all what it really looks like in my tanks.

 

It really is in the integrity of the seller to properly represent the coral for what it really looks like no matter what the means to get it done.

 

Anyone could say they don't photoshop and not be lying if they are using a different photo editing program. Or could say the same and just use a color enhancing filter, or set the color enhancement inside the camera. I mean there are a hundred ways a guy could get around saying they are "photoshopping" but if they are lying they are lying. Not to mention the obvious that there are color differences between most monitors and in different brands, wattage, and kelvin of lighting.

 

The bottom line is that any type of color "enhancement" is wrong, to make a coral look brighter, more colorful or have stronger contrast is misrepresenting the product. But if I was to take what comes out as an 18' photo and cut it down in photoshop to a photo that is 6' and ready for a listing I would still technically be photoshopping.