# How common is photoshopping?



## dawns (Jun 29, 2010)

How can you tell if they have been photoshopped?


----------



## Leooonie (May 30, 2009)

well looking back on them now, its just because some of the lines looks a bit awkward and fuzzy... I may be wrong..but I have seen it before on show kennels and it intrigues me


----------



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

VERY common, it really makes me mad when people photoshop imagines. On the site you linked, the back of the hock on the back left leg has been blurred, as has the back of the mane and the front of the tail for some reason. Those areas aren't consistent with the coat of the rest of the dog.

This breeder does it a lot
Standard Poodles - Sires Dams - Solid Colors
Parti Standard Poodles - Sires Dams

A popular canadian red/brown/black breeder has photoshopped images as well.

I don't know why people photoshop their dogs, I'm sure their dogs look fine or even better without it.

And
Pedigree: Leke Flamin Kokopelli Dancer


----------



## Leooonie (May 30, 2009)

Ohhh Ive seen those ones before fluffyspoos... always make me laugh so hard!! how can they not think thats obvious at all? Then again, they dont look like particularly brilliant breeders anyway :/

I guess its when people arent happy with their dogs they do it :/
I can see why you might do it to imagine what a dog might look like in a certain cut, but to dupe people into thinking your dogs are good quality is wrong


----------



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

Exactly, the only photoshopping I do on my own photos is contrast/saturation enhancement so you can actually see Vegas's details instead of a black shape of a dog. Though, I'm not a breeder, and this is just all for me. I only alter my dogs grooms when I'm trying to create a goal image, purely for myself as well and VERY obvious.


----------



## zyrcona (Jan 9, 2011)

Fluffyspoos said:


> Pedigree: Leke Flamin Kokopelli Dancer


Someone behind that garish pixellated hedge is trying to steal that dog! Stop them!

And the Smith Poodles images all have stinkhorns instead of tails.


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

My husband photoshopped a tiara on the head of my poodle. Does that count?  

The Smith poodles seem to have tails stuck on (maybe they are terrified and their tails are down?). The black poodle doesn't seem like they had a lot done. Maybe there was junk in the street and they wanted to get rid of it to show the dog off more. Maybe the haircut was lacking. The last one of Tigger is just hilarious. Obviously they couldn't get a photo without a person holding him still, so took the person out- except the hands. Too funny! Did you notice he is being choked, too? If that is the Tigger that we saw a video of a while back he was a nice looking dog.


----------



## tokipoke (Sep 3, 2011)

zyrcona said:


> Someone behind that garish pixellated hedge is trying to steal that dog! Stop them!
> 
> And the Smith Poodles images all have stinkhorns instead of tails.


LOL omg that dog was born with some extra growths!!! :laugh:


----------



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

No, outwest, it doesn't count!


----------



## Indiana (Sep 11, 2011)

Ha,ha you can totally see it in the coat! The lines are kind of crooked where they cut around the round parts  Well I'm sure the dog wouldn't win if he/she wasn't a good quality dog, but it doesn't really promote their kennel well because the average person is probably wondering, what else are they faking?


----------



## Jacknic (Sep 14, 2010)

Wow, you guys really are not comparing Vanitonia Kennel with Smith's poodles are you? Vanitonia, is known world wide for their quality dogs, their dog probably had three hairs out of place and they wanted her to look perfect,
show people get kind of annal about that and yes she would have looked fine to the novice eye. 
But to compare them to those other fools that have God aweful speciments of poodles, please don't do that! (I know you were not doing THAT but to even have them in the same tread is insulting!)


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle (Sep 1, 2009)

I have noticed many tails photo shopped into photos. It is so obvious, I am not sure why they do it. I do think sometimes people photoshop because THEY do not want to be in the photo themselves. I wouldn't begin to know how to photoshop a picture, but do crop to remove the humans sometimes. The photos are not about us, they are about them in most cases.

I get a bigger kick out of the colour enhanced photos. Do they think we do not notice when the people in the photos have skin that looks like they have been boiled in hot oil? YIKES!


----------



## CT Girl (Nov 17, 2010)

Arreau - your boiled in hot oil comment really made me laugh and laugh even harder when I looked over the pictures. I really loved looking at the gorgous Vanitonia poodles. They obviously don't need any "work" done. The other sites make me cringe. I noticed one used the term "white chocolate" to describe their cream/white? dog. Those dogs need all the photoshopping they can get.


----------



## plumcrazy (Sep 11, 2009)

I've also seen some photoshopped images when I was doing my research into getting my first standard... I wouldn't know the first thing about HOW photoshopping is done (I've never had that program on my computer) and I don't know how "artistic" one needs to be to do it well... To remove/hide peoples' hands that are actually touching the dog, for example - is this a delicate process so you don't excessively smear the edges of the dog itself? I'm seriously unaware how it works...

I have to say that I'm a bit offended by the obvious photoshopping that completely changes/alters the dog itself, but if it's to remove a person, leash, background, etc., I really couldn't care less that someone photoshopped that out... it doesn't change the dog... IMO...

Barb


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

I think it's important to define what you mean. The "built-in" functions in today's cameras really blur the lines re "fidelity" of the image before you even get to "photoshop". If you are shotting "RAW" images, you need "photoshop" or some other RAW image editor to "develop" your images. I crop, remove/replace objects, alter tonal qualities, color, & sharpness frequently to make up for limitations of the camera or shooting conditions & to render a "pleasing" image. But I'm not _selling_ anything and especially not selling the "veracity" of the images I make. I treat photography as an enjoyable _art_ form.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle (Sep 1, 2009)

I just changed the photo of Leke Flamin Kokopelli Dancer on Poodlepedigree. This is the exact same image, just with the pixelated mess removed and the hands removed. Makes a huge difference. Another member of this forum did this back when we were needing a photo of him for our web site. I could not believe the difference it made.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

*example*

Example, using the image in my signature. The "original," cropped, image :


----------



## spoospirit (Mar 10, 2009)

_To Photoshop (Lightroom) or not to Photoshop (Lightroom 'tis the question.

It depends on the reason for Photoshopping an image. Photoshopping showing/breeding dogs to make any type of change to their appearance to change their natural appearance is just plain unethical; especially if it is featured on their web site or other promotional place. 

I have seen people Photoshop out things like hands, etc so as not to take away from the dog. I did it on a photo of Billy because I wanted to see what he looked like standing alone. I took myself completely out of the photo. Here is where a person needs to be very careful. I went to school to learn how to do this professionally. When doing this, the artist needs to put back what is/or should be there without changing the look, color or structure of the dog. There aren't a lot of dog owners who can do this well. 

I also don't use any Photoshopped photos of my dogs on our web site or for promotional purposes. They are for our use to see things that we are looking for. I don't have a problem with anyone having to Photoshop a photo of their dog to remove human parts or other distracting things and post on forums or Facebook. However, when someone does do this, it is automatically going to be subject to suspicion as it is usually obvious that the photo has been altered. So there is a big risk in putting up photos that are obviously Photoshopped. 

I think that if breeders/show people want to publish photos of their stock, they should take the time to take the photo they want of the dog as is so that they are not subject to scrutiny. It just makes it less stressful for the owner to not have to defend themselves against suspected alteration. It also raises the degree of professionalism being employed when promoting their dogs.

I have color corrected for my dogs in Lightroom. This is something I have to do because my camera's calibration does not match with Lightroom's. I have to do this with all of my photos. I have been trained to color correct for proper white balance so that the dogs appear in their true color or as close as is possible to it. I do not consider this to be an improper use by anyone of altering an image if color correction is necessary. I really hate it when my photos of the dark dogs come in over saturated in purple!! LOL I also don't find it a problem if a dog photo needs a little sharpening to improve the appearance.

I see where the dog in question has been blurred out. That is an odd thing for anyone to do and then post on their web site. To use selective focus to get eyes tack sharp and then fade into a nice blur for artistic purposes is one thing, but to selectively blur particular areas of a dog leaves room for suspicion. The dog does not appear to have been altered beyond blurring. I don't see any signs of it having had hair removed or added. So this begs the question as to why even bother. 

I did notice in the photo of the same dog? below that it has a lot of either sunburned hair or brown tinting in it. I am questioning if the dog was altered to remove that tinting and blurred to help reduce it? I don't know. 

Again, if publishing photos of dogs to promote them, take the photo you want that says everything about your dog as it is. It doesn't take that long to get someone to help you set your dog up and get a few nice photos of it.

All photographers, graphics artists and so on always have to deal the question of where that line is when enhancements become alteration._


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle (Sep 1, 2009)

spoospirit said:


> _To Photoshop (Lightroom) or not to Photoshop (Lightroom 'tis the question.
> 
> It depends on the reason for Photoshopping an image. Photoshopping showing/breeding dogs to make any type of change to their appearance to change their natural appearance is just plain unethical; especially if it is featured on their web site or other promotional place.
> 
> ...


I could not agree more! Doctoring photos to enhance the dog's appearance is in my mind, the same thing as dying a dog. It is a misrepresentation of who that dog is. Changing a dog's tail set, darkening the eyes, altering the colour...imho...this is fraud. I had one photo sent to me where one of my pups just returned from the groomer. She looked great, except the groomer made her tail look like a paint brush or lion's tail. Another breeder friend dropped the pom pom down on her tail in the photo...nothing more, nothing less, and I have not used that photo in any promotional material. To me, it feels like cheating.

One good thing about photo shopping is, it is usually done so poorly, it is obvious to most lookers.


----------



## Anntig (Jun 9, 2010)

Interesting subject while I do think it is extremely unethical to misrepresent yourself by altering an image you're promoting, I do admit that I love playing around with picture editing and frequently edit out things in the background of my pics as alot of Shadows best poses occur when he's stopped to sniff a piece of rubbish and then lifted his head.
My sig is also heavily edited and I have tried to make that clear (Shadow in *Dream* and reality) but I always feel a little guilty when people compliment me on how beautiful he is as I'm not sure they've realised the two middle pics are edited- the two outside pics are the originals.


----------



## tokipoke (Sep 3, 2011)

Check out this poodle! I believe it's a rare toy size poodle LOL


----------



## phrannie (Jan 8, 2011)

*....and I have been guitly also....photoshopped eye bugers out of a few pics....LOL.*


----------



## Leooonie (May 30, 2009)

I was just interested I guess.. I know Vanitonia is a truly brilliant kennel, and having seen the pictures fluffypoos had shown before ( I remembered them..  ) I was surprised. I guess its just so obvious to me... I would still get a dog from there fo'sho', but.....

weird..

and by photoshopping I simply mean altering the actual objects in the photo from reality, in order to 'con' people. that was my context.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle (Sep 1, 2009)

Like the add on or newly placed tails?? Or the obviously enhanced colour?


----------



## faerie (Mar 27, 2010)

i've seen some poorly photoshopped images that make me cringe. 
i play w/ the lighting of my dogs so people can see them since they are black. but that's very basic, crop & lighten unless i'm trying to make something weird looking 

here i was playing with showing the individual cords on temperance.
i took these on my iphone
before no editing

October by faerie made, on Flickr

after edited on an iphone app:

Poodle cords by faerie made, on Flickr

another iphone picture lightened because it was inside and black critters

a day in the life by faerie made, on Flickr

this one was taken in good natural light so no enhancing needed and taken with a nikon d40 which is a dslr.

Seelie profile by faerie made, on Flickr


----------



## spoospirit (Mar 10, 2009)

_I don't find basic lighting and color correction of photos to be an alteration that deviates from the truth. It in fact helps represent the truth. This is the first step in workflow for photographers. 

I know you did this on your phone app. If I was doing the adjustments in Light Room, I would take down the purple in the black (a common problem with black) and increase the contrast to make it pop a bit more. 

There is nothing wrong with making adjustments like these. They are simply bringing up what is already there so that it can be seen; not altering the image to show things that are not there._


----------



## faerie (Mar 27, 2010)

what is light room?


----------



## spoospirit (Mar 10, 2009)

_Lightroom is an Adobe product. _

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3

_Artist use it as the basic operation of their workflow. It is a very powerful tool, but can be a bit challenging to people who do not know how to use it. It does have a 30 day free trial full version._


----------



## spoospirit (Mar 10, 2009)

_Faerie...here is your poodle after some basic Lightroom adjustments. Notice that there is no blue or purple hues that don't belong there and the pixilation from the lower quality photo has been smoothed out as much as it could be. Because I brought up the details in the black, it lightened the nice foliage in the background. I had to paint the exposure adjustment and some saturation back in to bring it back.










It actually looks better on my Photobucket page: http://s326.photobucket.com/albums/k405/decaphotography/?action=view&current=faerie_poodle-1.jpg I often find that photos inserted on the forums are not quite as nice as they appear in Lightroom or on Photobucket.
_


----------



## faerie (Mar 27, 2010)

thanks so much. i mean THANK YOU!~


----------



## lilypoo (Jul 25, 2011)

Photoshopping--if you're shooting RAW images then you HAVE to do some sort of image processing. My workflow as a digital photographer includes Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS4 (soon to be CS5 when I upgrade  ).

Editing and retouching? I do a lot of it doing portraits of people and pets. If I am selling something, I might enhance the color/contrast to make the item look the same in the image as it does sitting right here in front of me. Enhancing colors and other attributes to make something you're selling different...then I think that's highly unethical.

FWIW, people WANT to look better in their images. They just do. I doubt dogs care!


----------



## leke poodles (Nov 8, 2010)

*leke flamin kokopelli dancer*

Hello,
My name is Tina. I am the owner of Tigger leke flamin kokopelli dancer. The only changes made to that picture of Tigger was to take myself out of the photo.I was holding his tail and his neck area if you would like to see the original photo im happy to e mail it to you.
Thanks,
Tina


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

He is obviously a nice dog. It looks like someone fixed it for you- no more hands. It was so funny to see the hands there!


----------



## music0018 (May 27, 2015)

So, I'm curious as to how you all know that the Smith Poodles have been photoshopped? Were you there when the pictures were taken? Did they tell you they photoshop? Just wondering…
Also, do you all have nothing better to do then to sit around and criticize other people? I mean, if you could do things any better, maybe you should give it a try!


----------



## sparkyjoe (Oct 26, 2011)

This is a very old thread, but when it came up I went out to look at the Smith site.

Was I there when the pictures were taken, nor did they personally tell me that any of their pictures were altered? No.

BUT, I have a sharp eye for detail and in my opinion there are many of their dog's photos which are suspect. 

To correct the look of some hair that was out of place or to remove a person, so as to give privacy to someone or even to highlight the dog is one thing.
But, to me, it looks like many dogs on the Smith website have more questionable modifications such as to fix a structural issues.

But for me, that's not the worse thing about that "breeder", rather it's the FIVE litters they are expecting between now and the end of August. That's a lot of puppies!

As for criticizing, everyone has their opinions, but to me Poodle Forum is first and foremost a site to support people and help them with their Poodly questions and concerns, give them a place to share their joys and pains, and sometimes just to share a laugh.

Personally, I see many of the posts in this thread as being helpful if someone were wondering what to look for in a good breeder and what to steer clear of in the way of a breeder when looking at a website.

I'll leave the actual breeding for those who have the heart, soul, and drive for it, but finding that person is not always easy and PF is a great tool to use in that type of effort.


----------



## poodlecrazy#1 (Jul 2, 2013)

music0018 said:


> So, I'm curious as to how you all know that the Smith Poodles have been photoshopped? Were you there when the pictures were taken? Did they tell you they photoshop? Just wondering…
> 
> Also, do you all have nothing better to do then to sit around and criticize other people? I mean, if you could do things any better, maybe you should give it a try!



My question is why are you bringing up old threads about this breeder and then being extremely defensive for them? You are stepping quite close to trolling.


----------



## music0018 (May 27, 2015)

sparkyjoe said:


> This is a very old thread, but when it came up I went out to look at the Smith site.
> 
> Was I there when the pictures were taken, nor did they personally tell me that any of their pictures were altered? No.
> 
> ...


Well, I guess that would be a compliment if the pictures looked so good that people think they are photoshopped. Have you ever taken pictures of puppies before that just don't want to be still long enough to snap a great photo? I have, and it is NOT a simple task...
As for this being an old thread, like I said in another post, I don't have to explain myself...but I will tell you since you all seem to be freaking out about me posting on old threads...I googled Smith poodles and this site came up...so, I decided to ask questions. Sorry if that is a crime...


----------



## peccan (Aug 26, 2014)

music0018 said:


> Well, I guess that would be a compliment if the pictures looked so good that people think they are photoshopped.
> 
> Have you ever taken pictures of puppies before that just don't want to be still long enough to snap a great photo? I have, and it is NOT a simple task...
> 
> (...) I googled Smith poodles and this site came up...so, I decided to ask questions. Sorry if that is a crime...


There's photoshopping and there's photoshopping. It's one thing to retouch, to correct minor shortcomings in the photographic and glamorous quality of a photo (the type you mean in your quoted post) and THEN there's... this...









I'd like express my apologies to this poor dog, it's owners, and the authors of the two photos used for this masterpiece: Pleple2000 and Pitke. Licensed under Creative CommonsAttribution - Share Alike 3.0 

I think it should be obvious to anyone who has visited their site that we mean the latter sort when we're talking about the Smith Poodles photos.

2) Regarding the Smhith photos, we were not talking about puppy photos, we were talking about the photos Smith Poodles presents of their breeding stock--the only photos, mind you, since a singular photo and the call names are pretty much the only things we get to know of their stock.

3) replying to old threads (especially in a case such as yours) is understandable, I don't think anyone's criticising you of that directly--

But apart from anything else that's likely to raise hackles (derailing, dismissing, denying), you've been very defensive and passive-aggressive and resorted to such tactics, rhetorics I should say perhaps, that I can't help but feel like you're a genuine troll, or genuinely a person who should not be discussing controversial matters. Snide non-apologies like "sorry if that's a crime" won't find you any friends here on the forum or anywhere else.


----------



## sparkyjoe (Oct 26, 2011)

I think Peccan's reply pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Poodlerunner (Jul 4, 2014)

Just read this old thread and visited Smtih's website. Even with the photoshopping, for me... all I see are:










pr


----------



## ericwd9 (Jun 13, 2014)

I have a feeling that there are two new members (possibly the same troll) who have revisited the Smith posts. The best thing to do with trolls is to "send them to Coventry" Google that one LOL
Eric


----------



## Naira (Jan 9, 2015)

I agree with Eric. I think bumping the post did more harm than good. To be honest, if I were a prospective buyer I would find the whole thing very sketchy.


----------

