1. Open a new image by going to File> New. Any size will do, as long as it’s not tiny. The background contents should be the default, white. Click OK. Set your colors to the default (black in the foreground, white in the background) by typing D on your keyboard. Then choose the Type tool from the toolbar or get it by typing T on your keyboard. Click on your image to start typing (this will automatically put your text on a new layer).

2. To make the © using a PC, hold down the Alt key and type 0169. On a Mac, press Option + G. Then type in a copyright notice (your name, your company, etc.) as you want it to appear. Pick a font you like — you’ll be stuck with it.

3. Now hide the Background layer. Do this by clicking the eye icon to the left of the Background layer’s name on the Layers Palette. Make sure your Type layer is still selected (click on it if not). Then select your text: Go to Select > Color Range, move the Fuzziness slider all the way to 200, and click OK.

4. Then make your custom brush: Choose Edit > Define Brush Preset. Enter a descriptive name for the brush (like MyCopyright), and click OK.

5. To test your new brush, open an image you’d like to stamp. Grab the Brush tool (type B). Then, from the Options bar at the top of your screen, pull down the Brush menu and scroll to the bottom. The one you just made is the last on your list. Click on it to select it, then click the spot in your image where you want to stamp your copyright. If it’s too small to see, increase your brush size.

There was an uproar a while back about the media in Malaysia altering press pictures to make them more attractive or slightly change the meaning/context by removing/adding people or merging two pictures.

It also happens to big shot AP photographers and many other press agencies, there is a full gallery that shows the extent of the manipulation and the stories surrounding them. And it’s been happening for a long time.

Like this for example:

Trotsky…now you see him, now you don’t.

And this LA Times pictures which turned out to be a composite of two pictures to ‘improve the composition’.

In most of these cases the photographers were fired. I believe this is rightly so, in the case of media photography or photojournalism, you are taking the scene, the reality, what occurred, it’s not down to artistic interpretation or manipulation.

Source: News.com

One of the videos that made Extreme Photoshop makeovers famous.

The neck extension part is the one that freaks me out..

It just shows the power of creative lighting, good makeup and hair, a good clean photograph and a LOT of post processing.

The girl looks just about average to begin with, but so striking on the billboard.

I can recognise most of the moves, quite a lot of perspective transformation, can you see them all?

I start this post with a couple of pictures. The first photo was how the sky looked like in the evening, processed from the RAW file with minimal adjustments. The second is the photo after some level tweaks in Adobe PS. Which catches your eye more?

Before manipulation

After manipulation

This brings me to the thoughts where photographs can be altered for various reasons. I am not posting this to start a debate on what is right and what is not but you can feel free to share with us your thoughts on this.

Since the dawn of photography, some photographers have strived to change reality pre and post exposure. Salon photographers pay cyclists to cycle in the sunset to capture their silhouttes and they also pay old men to dress up as monks so that they could be interesting subjects. Today, in the digital realm, the manipulation of reality is more prevalent with tools like Adobe PS being ubiquitous and graphics artists use such tools as tool to create fantastical creations.

The only stance I take firmly is if a photograph, used for purposes of documentation, is altered. I do not agree to this.

Many people like to use their onboard B&W conversion when shooting with their cameras. Or simply use the Desaturate function in Photoshop (PS). Here’s a quick and dirty method that will give you more flexibility for converting colour photographs into B&W. Note there are 1001 ways to do the conversion but I like using the Channel Mixer.

The Channel Mixer is a relatively powerful tool. It can be accessed in PS by these menus - Image > Adjustments > Channel Mixer. I actually use this in the Layers mode but that is another discussion for another day. Once you understand this concept, you can easily apply it to any photo for conversion.

Here’s the original photo…

Now, click on Monochrome and pull the Red channel to 100% (leaving the other two channels as zero)

If you select 100% of Green…

And Blue 100%

Achieving the desired result requires you to mix and match the percentages of Red, Green and Blue channels and they do not necessarily have to add up to 100% (you can go beyond). Here’s what I chose for this. There are specific guidelines as to how your black and white photos should look like but they are only guidelines not gospel.

Final Result Red 80%, Blue 20%

Compare it with the simple Desaturate function…

You will see that the Channel Mixer method yields more details and contrast in the clouds and the reflections especially.

Good luck!