Mowing the Grass . . . In Photoshop?
by Bennett Holzworth, (13 comments)
I recently received a proof back from the client that had the words “cut grass” next to the photograph. I assume the client wasn’t telling me to change careers, but to trim the unruly grass in the specified photo. Actually, grass is used fairly liberally in this instance. It should have probably said “weed whack”. The photo is of some manufactured equipment that is in its natural environment, i.e. two feet tall weeds growing around it’s base. I’ve cleaned up plenty of photos in my career, but it just seems to be getting ridiculous. Do clients know too much about the powers of Photoshop, or too little? Wouldn’t it just be easier for the client to pay a grounds keeper to mow around the equipment and then retake the photo (which they insist on shooting themselves)?
Maybe the problem is education. I looked at this little bit of yard work and thought about the last time I saw daylight during the scheduled business day. I fired up my virtual mower and went to work without a word of advice for the client. You all know the kind of work I am talking about. This isn’t as much mowing as it is construction. This time I really had some heavy lifting to do. Recreating the way the way the metal was connected to the cement and refiguring the myriad of shadows were just a couple of the challenges. If the client actually saw how much work it takes to recreate entire sections of a photograph, they might reconsider what they ask. Maybe this is just a testament as to how easy and effortless we designers make photo correction look. Maybe it is just Hollywood.
This kind of work would be so much easier if Hollywood would just release those magical filters that they portray in so many of their crime and espionage thrillers. I am thinking that once they release the “enhance that” feature (which of course turns 30 pixels into press ready photos) they will definitely include the “mow the yard” filter.
What feats of wonder have you undertaken in you career as a designer? I feel as though I have had temporary stints as a cosmetologists, weather man, construction worker, plastic surgeon and now grounds keeper.
Now I have to decide wether I am up for the next change on the same manufacturer’s proof – make steel look “galvanized” on product, I wish I was kidding. Does anyone know were I can find the “galvanizer” filter?
Comments (13)
Hugh Firebaugh said:
My personal favorites that I have had to deal with -
Clean up this construction photo and add landscaping so it will look the way its going to when we open.
We took this picture in winter - can you add leaves to the trees and maybe a few flowers?
I work for two nice ladies of a certain age - two words: Digital Botox.
I blinked in that photo can you open my eyes?
The horse’s mane is on the wrong side - can’t you just flip the photo around and make it right? TRUE STORY!
All of these were possible - time consuming - but possible. It just goes to show that a little preparation goes a long way.
Posted on December 29, 2005
Doug Fuller said:
I once had a client ask me to alter the features on some faces in a photograph so they wouldn’t need to get permission from the individuals to use their likenesses. Same client also asked if I could turn a Caucasion into an African-American. No joke
Posted on December 30, 2005
Michael Dogan said:
Ah yes, but it is such a good feeling to create a composite photo of various ‘objects’ and make it look as though you actually did a photo shoot.
I recently had to create a magnifying glass resting on a newspaper that highlighted a certain box that had the copy for a postcard piece. I was told to put in a cup of coffee to make it all look real.
I was finished, and so proud… it looked real. But you have to ask yourself this:
Would it have been less exepensive for me to shoot this?
If you aren’t sure, then shoot it. If you think it may be cheaper to shoot it, then shoot it. Sometimes photo manipulation is NOT profitable. It eats into your time on the project and if it’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that you’ve got to watch the clock and watch the scope! Don’t go out of either even though photo manip. teases and dares you to walk that dangerous line.
My 2 cents guys. Cheers!
Posted on December 30, 2005
Nate Voss said:
I once spent two weeks transforming a summertime, high-noon photo in to an early-evening winter wonderland shot. In fact I did ask “why can’t we just wait until it snows?” And they did say “because we said so.”
Posted on December 30, 2005
RQ in SLC said:
OMG! This is so funny! I have dune just about all of what was said here. It is funny how we are consider mirical workers by some and just do it’s by others… :P Just me $0.02
Posted on December 30, 2005
HistoricDundee said:
http://www.greystoneinn.net/comics/20040330.gif
Posted on December 30, 2005
drs18 said:
I’m challenged by requests like these, and find satisfaction in doing the job well. Possibly that sense of challenge and the skill set I’ve developed to meet it place me in a specific job category that you don’t want to be in? Just as some designers work with freelance illustrators (some excellent designers can’t draw a lick…) maybe this is a case where you should consider hiring a freelance “Chopper”?
…and if you bridle at the thought, maybe you just need to pick up that Wacom pen and practice the craft more?
Posted on December 30, 2005
Bennett said:
drs18, It’s not that I don’t enjoy it or can’t do a good job, sometimes it is just good to step back and make sure that it is the most efficient way of doing things. Maybe it is in the best interest of the client to hire a photographer instead of getting “satisfaction” from the challenge.
With that said… As for me, I probably would rather be designing all of the time instead of this kind of production work.
Posted on December 30, 2005
Kyle said:
I was co-directing a photo shoot yesterday, and the client from Marketing was joking around that if the models didn’t like their hair color, we could just “Photoshop-in” some other color. Like it’s that easy.
I try not to remember the horrors of reconstructive photo surgery I’ve had to do, but I do remember maiming some military vehicles of their guns and cannons. We wouldn’t want to offend anyone. Thankfully, that’s as outrageous as Hugh’s “flip the horse’s mane.”
Posted on December 30, 2005
drs18 said:
Yes, it’s in everyone’s best interest to advise the client/boss on the best way to do a job. It may be better to cut the grass and bring back the photographer (and shame on the photographer for not pointing out the problem in the first place…) and it may be better to do the chopping. I think the skill sets that are available for the job may play a big part in how we advise, though.
I think a designer can be extremely talented, infinitly gifted, and still not be able to chop on a level that some would consider professional. Maybe it’s a calling? Like some designers are better typographers than others. The ones with lesser skills still do credible work. To best serve the job, I think we have to recognize our own limitations, and advise accordingly.
Posted on December 30, 2005
p.berkbigler said:
Much of this string also seems to recall some of the discussion of web design vs. programming and the way these two linked practices are often being blurred into the same position - I think a lot of the Photoshop abuse that some of us may be feeling in work like this might actually be remedied via appropriate invoicing. I’m almost positive that the GAG Ethics & Standards guide breaks out specific costs for “digital retouching” vs. “graphic design”, and we probably need to remind clients of this distinction within the job costs.
The best and most amusing irony of the continuing history of Photoshop is how often it continues to prove that a talented and educated photographer can and does solve most of these visual problems right at the lens and saves so much needless post work. Nothing like a little technology proving time and again that human ingenuity and insight can still trump much needless digital precision.
The other chuckle that I get out of Photoshop is how often its abilities to enable the creation of images that would be really, really, really challenging to actually create through photography alone is harnessed instead to generate the most banal results that could have been solved with a light meter and good timing. How about putting our time and money back into the services of photographers, many of whom have lost so much business to designers enraptured with the glories of Photoshop and a little too star-struck with the technology to also turn the job over to much more qualified and experienced workers.
Posted on December 31, 2005
Dave said:
For a client’s brochure, I bought a stock photo that looked like a typical “businesspeople around a desk” shot. It wasn’t until I paid 14 zillion dollars and got the hi-res image that I realized it was actually “medical people around a desk” shot — and there was a full-size skeleton standing in the corner. Crap! Fortunately, Billy Bones was propped up against a grey cement wall, so the retouch was quick. Whew!
Posted on January 1, 2006
Jeremy said:
A big part of my job is touching up magazine covers for the company’s (absolutely hideous and in need of a design but can’t get management to budge) web store. I scan the mag cover and have to “just Photoshop in” the area where the mailing label was. Usually it’s easy, but every once in a while Maxim, Playboy, Stuff, etc puts the label across the, uh, itnimate areas. Now that’s FUN to draw back in, zoomed in on a 19inch screen in a high traffic cubicle! Very time consuming, but a nice relaxing way to spend a Monday morning or Friday afternoon.
Posted on January 4, 2006