# Question about editing, please help!



## zzaapp (Sep 17, 2011)

Could anyone please explain to me how you achieve tones and colors that are in this photo by using Adobe photoshop?

Only thing I can find is something like color balance but I'm not 100% sure how its done.

I would be very grateful...

Thanks

NOTE: These are NOT my photos


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 17, 2011)

You are not supposed to post pictures that are not your own.
Just put links to them.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 17, 2011)

google "split toning"


----------



## Peano (Sep 17, 2011)

It's cross-processing, usually done in curves but can be done with other kinds of adjustment layers. Here are a couple of explanations of the technique:

ModelMayhem.com - What's the filtering technique?

ModelMayhem.com - Trying to figure out this filter...


----------



## KmH (Sep 17, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> You are not supposed to post pictures that are not your own.
> Just put links to them.


As stated in TPF's rules/regs: Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum FAQ



> * You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff.    Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.



You might want to edit your OP by deleteing those stolen photos, and change them to links.


----------



## SensePhoto (Sep 17, 2011)

Looks like split toning to me


----------



## Peano (Sep 18, 2011)

> * You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff.    Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.





KmH said:


> You might want to edit your OP by deleteing those stolen photos, and change them to links.



Just by way of clarification, the forum rules are a reason not to post images that you don't own. But that rule aside, there is no copyright infringement here. The doctrine of "fair use" permits the copying (and even altering) of images that you don't own. In this case, the OP was posting the images for an educational purpose, to learn how a particular toning was achieved. That's perfectly OK under "fair use."

Again, if forum rules forbid posting images you don't own, that's a sufficient reason not to do it. But we shouldn't leap to making charges of "stolen" photos. The forum rules reflect over-caution about copyright infringement. The latitude under "fair use" is much broader than this forum recognizes in its rules. When you post someone else's image for an educational purpose, you aren't infringing their copyright. You're merely breaking a forum rule.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 18, 2011)

It is a stupid rule.  I rather see the photo than clicking a link.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 18, 2011)

The problem would be by allowing 'fair use' photos, the mods would have to look at every picture and determine if the use was indeed a fair use and not a copyright violation.  
By allowing others' photos to be posted, then the site would be taking the liability for enforcing copyright violation.
The mods could require a statement that a not-owned photo was a 'fair use' with every non-owned picture but that wouldn't work here.

Other non-photo sites have the same rule.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 18, 2011)

not on the other forum I use.


BTW Lew, did you take that photo of Mother Theresa?  I would love to have met her.


----------



## Peano (Sep 18, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> By allowing others' photos to be posted, then the site would be taking the liability for enforcing copyright violation.



Who told you that?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 18, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> not on the other forum I use.
> 
> 
> BTW Lew, did you take that photo of Mother Theresa?  I would love to have met her.



That is a 'fair use' because I combined it with the other picture in an artistic representation.


----------



## KmH (Sep 18, 2011)

TPF has a measure of protection from the OCILLA statues.


----------



## KmH (Sep 18, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> It is a stupid rule.  I rather see the photo than clicking a link.


You clearly don't 'get' copyright.


----------



## Peano (Sep 18, 2011)

KmH said:


> You clearly don't 'get' copyright.



What is your understanding of the fair use doctrine? Can you briefly explain why you think the images in this thread wouldn't qualify as fair use?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 18, 2011)

Do the rules say anything about thread-jacking, 'cuz we done dunnit


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 18, 2011)

Keith, I am really tired with your posts about this crap.  I onced posted this photo to help a member what I was talking about and you PM'ed me and lectured me about copyright stuff.  Maybe start taking photos and share it with us instead of lecturing people about the law all the time? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






KmH said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > It is a stupid rule.  I rather see the photo than clicking a link.
> ...


----------



## gerardo2068 (Oct 3, 2011)

What I hate about this stupid "copyright" rule is that it takes away from the goal. That is to learn from this post. But every time I see a good post, when I start reading it gets deviate from the topic to talk about stupid rules. And stupid are the people that don't work for this forum and still try to enforce that stupid rule


----------



## andrewleephoto (Oct 4, 2011)

To all of the people who are being a pedant, just chill and answer this person's question...


----------



## marcy (Oct 5, 2011)

If you have a Raw file,this process becomes even  easier,with CS4 all the tools for you to create the split  toning effect.


----------



## KmH (Oct 5, 2011)

Peano said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly don't 'get' copyright.
> ...



My understanding is that fair use gets decided by the court on a case-by-case basis.

As they note in FL-102, Reviewed November 2009 - U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use



> The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. *Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission*.


 (My emphasis)

Further, The US Copyright office's Circular 1 is explicit in that:



> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdfSection 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the _*exclusive*_ right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
> 
>  reproduce the work in copies....


 Simply put, you cannot copy someone's photograph off the Internet without their permission.

TPF's rules/regs don't allow for 'fair use' in any form.......You either exclusively own the copyright, or have a valid use license you can show to TPF managament.

As mentioned earlier, TPF themselves have a measure of protection from the OCILLA Statutes.  The OCILLA statues do not offer any protection to an image theif.


----------



## Peano (Oct 5, 2011)

KmH said:


> Simply put, you cannot copy someone's photograph off the Internet without their permission.[/FONT]



Nonsense. Every time you view an image on your browser, your computer creates a copy of that image and stores it in the temporary Internet files. If what you said were true, it would be violation of copyright merely to view an image without the copyright holder's permission.


----------



## KmH (Oct 5, 2011)

No, it's not nonsence.

The key there is _*temporary*_ Internet files, which in the eyes of the law is not the same as right clicking on an image, or taking a screen shot of an image, and saving it on your computer hard disk.


----------



## Destin (Oct 5, 2011)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> Keith, I am really tired with your posts about this crap.  I onced posted this photo to help a member what I was talking about and you PM'ed me and lectured me about copyright stuff.  Maybe start taking photos and share it with us instead of lecturing people about the law all the time?



COMPLETELY agree. Keith is getting over the top ridiculous enforcing this rule. He needs to take a chill pill before that little vein in his forehead pops.


----------



## Peano (Oct 6, 2011)

KmH said:


> No, it's not nonsence.
> 
> The key there is _*temporary*_ Internet files, which in the eyes of the law is not the same as right clicking on an image, or taking a screen shot of an image, and saving it on your computer hard disk.



Wrong again. When you view an image, the file is stored on the hard drive. Those stored files are "temporary" only if your settings make them temporary.

But rather than engage in idle chatter, let's try this: Since you claim to see so clearly through "the eyes of the law," cite a *statute* or a *case* that supports what you claim to see. Or cite a single case in which a court ruled that copyright was infringed merely because someone saved an image on his hard drive. (Hint: Don't waste your time looking, because no such case exists.)


----------

