A question for the group

Maybe I'm a bit of a holdover from the olden days, but I notice a trend with this group of folks that makes me wonder if I'm just too old fashioned.

There seems to be an... I don't want to call it attitude, maybe consensus?, that a photo that hasn't been PhotoShopped just isn't complete.

I've been shooting as an amateur for over twenty years, and I agree, PS and similar tools are wonderful for touching up images that have problems... but, is there anybody out here that still shoots direct from the camera to print, without having to adjust curves, de-saturate colors, etc? Seems to me that all of the post work detracts what the image should be, which is an accurate representation of what's really there.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, as that is truly not it's intent. I'm just wondering if I'm the only one that doesn't see the need to modify every picture I shooot.

No, you're not the only one that feels that way. And I do think it's something of an "old school" way of thinking but saying that sounds negative and I don't mean it in a negative manner at all. I don't take anything in your post in a negative manner and understand the perspective.

I think there is in fact a trend, like the one you've noticed. But I see it as an evolution of things that is natural for some and not for others.

What you're actually presenting is a familiar argument/perspective that's been discussed quite a bit on the internet; digital manipulation.

Charles Hess is a photographer that used to visit this site a lot and through the years bounced back and forth between camera formats multiple times. He eventually settled on his trusty Leica rangefinder if I recall correctly. It's what suited him and he is great with it. There was a small point in time where he was excited about digital but it faded in time.

We all photograph for different reasons. I suspect the reasons we photograph are the cause of many of the different perspectives on the subject of "photoshopping" images. I think you'll find since you posted this that people at this site will post a lot of interesting perspectives for you to read.

Let me give you an example of perspective. You said "Seems to me that all of the post work detracts what the image should be, which is an accurate representation of what's really there."

That may be why you take photographs, but it won't be the same reason for everyone. And given what you've said I can completely understand why you would ask about digital manipulation.

I guess that's all I have to say for now :)

I not only don't modify every picture, I don't modify any pictures. It's the way I learned it:

Work like hell before you hit the shutter release.
Throw out the bad ones.

If the image needs "manipulation," then you didn't do your job.

"If the image needs "manipulation," then you didn't do your job"

Ooooh, them's fightin words :D :p ;)

Can't you think of any reason why you would need to change something after the shutter was pressed? Haven't you had something that you just couldn't control at the time of shutter press?

I agree completely with your approach, that you need to do everything possible to make the photo correct before pressing the shutter. But come on, haven't you had a time where you had no choice? Equipment limitation perhaps?

I think I'll make another comment that perhaps carney2 was touching on.

Some people take horrible boring regular old snapshots and try to use photoshop to turn them into something interesting. Is that what you two are talking about?

I'm not afraid to say (although my photography isn't very good either) that the photographs on this site often give that impression. Fortunately, you can usually tell when someone put a lot of thought into a photograph or if they're just trying to feed you a photoshopped thoughtless failure.

Digressing back a little...
Photographers put a lot of moral value on "vision" and the success in capturing that vision without post capture modification. I feel the same way. But to ignore the tools available in today's age could precent new opportunities and a new kind of vision for the same photographers.

Look at this photographers work:
http://www.czarnykwadrat.republika.pl/

His images are HEAVILY photoshopped after the shot.....very heavily. But he takes his photographs with these final results in mind. The post processing is part of his vision before he presses the shutter. Would his vision be any less "honorable" than those whose tools are all used prior to pressing the shutter?

So does cropping and adjusting exposure in photoshop constitute manipulation? I recall doing a lot of selective cropping/framing and dodge/burning in the darkroom, but no one ever accused me of manipulation. Ansel Adams was famous for his darkroom techniques, is that manipulation?
I'm a little confused here. Help me out somebody!!! :confused:

Yes there is a lot of talk about manipulation, fixing photos, etc, but as we move into the digital world more and more, there is a need to do things to images, much like what is/has been done in the past with negatives etc as well.

I think of Photoshop as just my darkroom that I use to adjust miages, like Lionheart has said, correcting images to see what I did wrong to improve my captures to help cut down on the time needed to adjust images due to my own missgivings and not the cameras or lens that I used.

Photography to me, is an on going learning process that changes given the conditions we are taking the image in at the time. No time is exactly the same, at any given time and unless we are gods, we take bad/not so bad/acceptable/good/really good/excellent images in no particular order.

Photographers that take excellent/exceptional images have done so, through much trial and error in their past, guideance along the way from others. Some are just born with it within them, much like a pianist is born with the ability in them to excel at piano.

The darkroom was/is used by many professionals to enhance their images they just didn't talk about it as much as what is discussed within digital imaging, which generally requires some sort of adjustment first up, even it is is just a white balance and unsharpen masking to sharpen then image a bit, especially if there is no in camera manipulation done post capturing.

Anyway, that is how I see it.

The old ways are good, but I think the new era in photography is just getting better and better every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FadderUri

Seems to me that all of the post work detracts what the image should be, which is an accurate representation of what's really there.

---

No, I'm not gonna get into it with you or anyone elase over this often dissused topic, because our opinions about this are mostly (if not entirely) based on the way we learned, not only about photography, but about creating art in general.

What I will say, with all due respect, is that your quote above is missing two extremely important words:

"Seems to me that all of the post work detracts (from) what I think the image should be, which is an accurate representation of what's really there..."

That's the key to this topic. What each of us believes a photograph is suppose to represent.

To me there is NO direct connection between my photos and "reality". If the purpose, or more accurately, the LIMITATIONS of my shooting were be an "accurate representation of what's really there", I doubt I would be a photographer at all...

Oh, and BTW, do I thnk ALL images should be photoshopped? Of course not. But it has nothing to do with reality... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carney2

I not only don't modify every picture, I don't modify any pictures. It's the way I learned it:

Work like hell before you hit the shutter release.
Throw out the bad ones.

If the image needs "manipulation," then you didn't do your job.

---

If your job is done when you press the shutter release, you are just hiring someone else to do the manipulation. It still has to be done or there's nothing to hang on the wall.:)

Edit-
OK, I had to come back into this because I realized that if you are shooting slide film and it is properly developed you would have something that you could hang on a wall without any manipulation...but you'd have to stand damned close to the wall to look at it.:)

I think part of the reason there is more ps-ing going on is because more people are shooting digital. I don't think that the dslr's are built to give you a final image straight out of the camera. I mean, if you can get it, great, good for you. But mine are usually a bit softer, and usually end up black and white. When I first got the 10d, I was very disappointed with the results, because I was used to not having to do much work in ps. Maybe some cropping, a little sharpening from the scan, whatever. I posted about my issues, and someone (can't remember who offhand, but I still have the info saved) typed up a huge sharpening guide. And now I'm usually happy, and if not, it's usually my fault.

Now I'm rambling...anyway. I think my point is, as more people use digital, more people are going to ps. Some to enhance, some because it's there, and they can. I think film gave me a "closer to the end result" than digital does, so there is more work after shooting. But I'm okay with that.

Every image you're looking at on this site or any other is a digital image. Could have been shot on film or digital, but it's a digital image that you see.

When you scan slides, it takes a fair amount of work in Photoshop (used as a generic term for any editing program) and/or the scanning software to get the digital image to match the slide. This is above and beyond spotting out dust and sizing the file for it's use. I don't consider that manipulation. Adding another tree in the background or drawing a moustache on your ex-girlfriend is a different story though...

The only camera I shoot with that I find myself doing (almost) straight prints from is my Coolpix. With that one, I have to clone out the hot pixels but that's about it. The difference is that these cameras are designed to give better straight prints, DSLR's are designed for more manipulation. Either the camera does it automatically or you do it with more control over the final result.

Far as accurate representation goes, have a roll of color neg film printed without any adjustments made at time of printing and you'll see all kinds of problems that would normally be taken care of automatically (color balance, lighten/darken, etc). These adjustments are almost always made digitally because most prints from labs are digital. Scanning color film negs gives you the control of determining the final result - you can make all of the adjustments to where you see them as correct instead of the lab making those choices for you.

alright, im done, no more, tired of explaining. Here's my recent quote.

ENHANCING (not fixing), requires that all the elements must already be present.

Figure that out, then you will get it, otherwise you don't.

Adious all!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hodgy

ENHANCING (not fixing), requires that all the elements must already be present.

---

What he said :)

Exactly what I was trying to say. IMO, editing is not meant to make up for a lack of anything that comes before it, but rather just another step in the total process.

Many heavily edited shots show no signs of it. That should make it obvious it is simply a tool...

... for their input.

Let me say firstoff, that I am not against doing digital manipulation of images, I just worry that if we get too dependent on being able to fix exposure mistakes, lighting goofs, etc. in post, then we'll get lazy as far as taking the original picture.

It's something I've seen before when computers are able to come in and cover up for human shortcomings, which is OK in the world of business, but, IMHO, would be a disaster in the creative world.

The replies that have been posted in this thread have given me something to think over, which I will be doing. For one thing, I'm still shooting film, whereas the majority of the people in the group seem to have gone digital. That's probably got a lot to do with the different POV on things.

Thanks again, everyone.

Great topic. Glad I could throw some gasoline on the fire.

As for the Ansel Adams comment, there are a lot of people with a fairly low opinion of Adams' work because of all his darkroom "enhancements." I don't happen to be one of them, but they're out there.

A lot of us - me included - shoot both. Nothing looks like Tri-X after all... It's nice to have digital tools when something went wrong and you have to have a shot but I agree that it's not something to be relied upon. Just like shooting slides, get it right in the camera. It'll save time in post and give you a higher quality image.

IIRC, you said something about an old Fender Strat once - I've worked with musicians in studios that would rather "fix it in the mix" - basically the same thing as trying to save a shot in Photoshop. I feel the same way about that too! :D

Having been a professional artist for most of my life, let me first say that I believe that its the end result that matters. Having said that, a crummy shot is a crummy shot. You can't save it in Photoshop. Photoshop is not a magic bean. It's a means of developing images digitally and processing what came out of the camera. Over the last ten months, my images have gotten a lot better, because the images I'm getting OUT of the camera are better. My post production is greatly reduced when the picture is good.

The only other thing I would add (from a graphic design perspective) is that almost every photograph you see in an advertisement, on the cover of a magazine, on a billboard, or published anywhere else has more than likely been touched by an artist. It's been enhanced. It's been touched up. It's color has been tweaked. It's NOT what originally came out of the camera. It's the nature of graphic design. I've handled a lot of photographs that I then had to turn into a layout. I have always punched up the shot and corrected minor errors. That is standard operating procedure for the artists you'll sell your pictures to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FadderUri

I just worry that if we get too dependent on being able to fix exposure mistakes, lighting goofs, etc. in post, then we'll get lazy as far as taking the original picture.

---

IMO, this is the best point made yet in this thread, and what I think this discussion should really be about.

This is certainly a legitimate concern, and I agree the heavy emphasis on digital editing and retouching (especially for a lot of new and younger photographers) takes away from the fundamentals of shooting with a camera.

It's only natural that the easier it is to "fix" things after the fact, the less likely we'll be to do all the work to make them "right" in the first place.

Fortunately, my basic learning is done, and I will always have high standards and work very hard to get things right in the camera. So, in that sense, I'll never see myself as having this problem.

Folks that don't work hard to really get the shooting part down are only hurting themsleves and will likely end up wasting much of their creative energy and time laboring over a computer.

I do it because I want to, not because I have to...

Quote:

---

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt1" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by FadderUri
I just worry that if we get too dependent on being able to fix exposure mistakes, lighting goofs, etc. in post, then we'll get lazy as far as taking the original picture. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
IMO, this is the best point made yet in this thread, and what I think this discussion should really be about.

This is certainly a legitimate concern, and I agree the heavy emphasis on digital editing and retouching (especially for a lot of new and younger photographers) takes away from the fundamentals of shooting with a camera.

---

I am not sure this is that much of a concern. Laziness is a virtue :-) If I can get the image I want in an easier way, that's a good thing.

I believe this attitude has umm.. let's say historical reasons for existing. The generation that grew up doing things manually is always sceptical of automation. When cameras with built-in meters (and a bit later auto-exposure cameras) appeared, there was a big outcry about the dumbing down of photography and how the only the lazy and the skillless would use such a thing. We are now in the middle of a similar process with regard to digital.

I agree with Armstrong that it's the end result that matters. How you got there is really irrelevant.

Having said that, Photoshop cannot magically turn a bad image into a good one. I sense a bit of fear along the lines of "I am a skilled craftsman who spent years learning my tools and working to overcome their limitations, and now these noobs with their electronic gizmos can do almost the same thing without having to learn anything!". That fear is overblown, in my opinion. A bad image is still a bad image even when you crank up the saturation and oversharpen it :-)

People who create great images can do so because of what's in their head, not because of what tools they use. Photoshop is just another tool -- it's just that it's much more convenient to move a mouse around rather than mess with an enlarger and trays of chemicals (yes, I've done both).

Not to mention that even in the film world the concept of "straight out of the camera" is very iffy. You chose the film, right? Velvia would give you an image that's very different from, say, Astia. Which image is the "correct" one?

And once we get to prints... You probably would give your negatives to a lab, and the lab would run them past a video analyzer, adjust white balance, adjust colors and contrast -- that's still "straight out of the camera", right? But if I do the same think myself in Photoshop that's "not an accurate representation"..?

In any case, people who think they can shoot sloppily hoping to fix everything later in Photoshop are in for a big surprise -- you can't. If you don't have a stong image to start with, Photoshop can't help you.

Fey

Just a thought... would you type up a thesis paper and not run spell check on it?
Content doesn't change, just the presentation of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerriann85

Just a thought... would you type up a thesis paper and not run spell check on it?
Content doesn't change, just the presentation of it.

---

Score a bull's eye!!! I love it :)

"I am not sure this is that much of a concern. Laziness is a virtue :-) If I can get the image I want in an easier way, that's a good thing..."

This is not what we meant by "lazy". Not lazy as in trying to make picture taking easier, but lazy as you mention later in your post, being SLOPPY in not taking the time to learn the craft of creating a successful photo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with easier.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to clarify my quote...

"I sense a bit of fear along the lines of 'I am a skilled craftsman who spent years learning my tools and working to overcome their limitations, and now these noobs with their electronic gizmos can do almost the same thing without having to learn anything!'. That fear is overblown, in my opinion..."

I know of no older pros that have this fear. We've all embraced digital and the wonderful advantages it brings. I think if there's any fear, it might be that digital imaging (and when I refer to this I mean "post-processing" editing) has led to a flood of mediocre "manipulated" shots. In a sense I think that's true, and yet I can't say that it bothers me much at all. I just worry about my own work... ;)

"I agree with Armstrong that it's the end result that matters. How you got there is really irrelevant..."

Ah, this is a discussion for another day. I for one, have never believed this. For many of us, the journey (substitute process if you'd like) is as important as the final product. You should check out some threads in the Photography as Art forum...

Maybe I can weigh in as a bonafide "noob."

I know a LOT of people who press shutter's. (My wife for example, but I won't go there. I won't.) But I wouldn't necessarily call them "photographers." I am trying to become a photographer, and I am working very hard at it. I haven't had any formal training, got everything I do have out of books and taking my camera out every day I can. (I've had it about 2 months now and am over 4000 photos, approaching 5000.) Most of that stuff is CRAP. I like to think that I am not in the minority in this. Most of what I shoot is not worth the film, or chip if you will, that it is printed on. We try different angles, different lighting, different weather, different voodoo dolls... oh... wait a minute. That's probably just me. My point is that we TRY to make everything just right before we press the shutter on every photo, but somehow the image just doesn't "work." I've heard many people say that they get 1 "keeper" for every 10 shots, and they call that a good ratio! Even you professionals don't use every photo you take, you take a mess of 'em and pick the best one for use. No?

Is photoshop going to make the rest of them keepers? I think not. It may improve the color, the sharpness, and the contrast; but it won't make them "the shot." The keepers proclaim themselves and are different for all of us.

What I have learned, as a digital shooter, is to not try to make the camera do everything so I can have a little control over the final product when it comes out of the camera. What I'm talking about is sharpeness, contrast and color. I set my camera on Adobe RGB, which is as neutral as can be, and color to taste later. I don't find this inherently (sp?) wrong. Not at all. I find that photoshop is one more tool in my toolbox to help me create compelling images. But you know what? I'm not drawing in there, there has to be something for photoshop to work with or I'm just playing with CRAP. And I'll end with a saturated, oversharpened, tweaked up piece of crap.

Rereading I'm not sure I've actually said anything here, so I'll try to clarify it. Photoshop is merely a tool. It can't take the photo, it can only adjust the photo you took. Good or bad. And that is a matter of taste. You "pureists" are afraid that the values and skills you learned are disappearing. They aren't. Those of us who want to get past "snapshooting" are still working to learn all we can about exposure and lighting and all that stuff that you accomplished photographers have learned, so we can offer the world as compelling and/or interesting an image as our talent allows. Photoshop is only one of our tools, and not the most important one.

That's my story. And I'm stickin' to it.

Regards,

Danny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

"I agree with Armstrong that it's the end result that matters. How you got there is really irrelevant..."

Ah, this is a discussion for another day. I for one, have never believed this. For many of us, the journey (substitute process if you'd like) is as important as the final product. You should check out some threads in the Photography as Art forum...

---

Just for the record, in speaking of the end result, I was referring to the tools used to get there (Sony F717, a throwaway, a polaroid, or a Canon 20D) - that's what doesn't matter. By no means was I speaking of the thought process or seriously working at a craft - knowing light and shadow - exposure - planning your shot. These things HAVE to matter in order to get a truly beautiful photograph. It's the equipment that doesn't matter to the viewer in the end.

Does that make sense?

Andy,

I realize your words were being paraphrased, and my response wasn't directed at you per se.

I completely agree with you that SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT is not usually an important part of the equation... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACArmstrong

Just for the record, in speaking of the end result, I was referring to the tools used to get there (Sony F717, a throwaway, a polaroid, or a Canon 20D) - that's what doesn't matter. By no means was I speaking of the thought process or seriously working at a craft - knowing light and shadow - exposure - planning your shot. These things HAVE to matter in order to get a truly beautiful photograph. It's the equipment that doesn't matter to the viewer in the end.

Does that make sense?

---

I am a bit confused :-)

It seems to me there are two different issues here.

When I said "only the end result matters" I meant that a print must stand by itself. When someone looks at a photograph he does not and should not care about what was needed (in terms of equipment, and skills, and luck, etc.) to make this photograph. The image must be judged on its own merits and not on the basis of what a photographer did to make it or who the photographer is.

The second issue seems to be "what is important in making a picture". Andy Armstrong says, as far as I understand him, that equipment is not all that important, while skill is. Generally speaking, this is of course true. There are obvious exceptions where specific equipment is needed to be able to make any decent shots, but I don't think there is any controversy about skill being much much more important than equipment.

It looks like the difference between Andy Armstrong and me is that he says that a viewer looking at an image does not care about the technology used, but he does care about the skill of the photographer. I would say that no, the viewer does not care about the skill -- all he cares about is the end result (and clearly, on rare occasions you can get outstanding results through blind luck and no skill).

Fey

I guess I generally agree with Fey's comment above - wasn't sure where this was going before this post... The image has to stand on it's own (or group of images) and it really doesn't matter what was used or what the photographer had for breakfast - but skill is involved here in choosing the right equipment for the job; as is it needed in determining exposure, etc.

But I see two issues here as well and they're not about this - one way of shooting is to get it "close enough" and save it in Photoshop, the other is to get the shot as close as possible at time of capture. Having to rely on post processing to make decent shots will create problems at some point, IMO. Digital has less tolerence for inaccurate exposure than slide film - at least for optimal results. All the Photoshop work in the world won't bring back blown highlights!

Fey, I understand your points, and I'm with you when you say this can be a confusing subject...

"When I said "only the end result matters" I meant that a print must stand by itself. When someone looks at a photograph he does not and should not care about what was needed (in terms of equipment, and skills, and luck, etc.) to make this photograph. The image must be judged on its own merits and not on the basis of what a photographer did to make it or who the photographer is..."

Again, I respect your opinion, but it is this exactly that I strongly disagree with. You say "someone" as if we can easily define that someone, but obviously we can't. Someone could be anyone...

I MYSELF am "someone" and an art viewer, and to me, the final image is NOT always the most important thing. And I know there are many other people like me who agree with this. So, I think your statement, while valid for the most part, is still a generalization that isn't always true.

The process that an artist goes through to create an image is sometimes paramount to the experience, both for the creator as well as the viewer. This is just common sense. The STORY behind the image, be it what, how, when, who, or where adds imeasureably to the viewer connection and experience for many types of photography.

If you are in any kind of academic environment regarding photography or art, you learn pretty quickly that even when a piece does not "work" (ie stand on its own), you can still gain much from the experience by discussing what an artist was trying to do. It is possible to have a serious appreciation for an image even if it wasn't totally successful.

The history of photography is filled with technically "flawed" images that are considered quite significant simply because of the circumstances behind them. What they have is meaning or content that goes well beyond form...

In the world of art a lot of times people don't "get" a piece until they learn about the it and/or the artist and/or the circumstances of the work and THEN make an effort to understand why something is dynamic or emotional or political or whatever.

A brilliant work is not always obvious to the casual viewer. Photography is no different...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

For many of us, the journey (substitute process if you'd like) is as important as the final product. You should check out some threads in the Photography as Art forum...

---

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The end result is all that matters for the viewer. What matters for the photographer is an entirely different question. Photographers may and do find important all kind of things, from internal aesthetics to money, from seeing the image appear in the developer tray to seeing letters L-e-i-c-a on their camera, from exorcising private demons to fame and fortune...

Fey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

I MYSELF am "someone" and an art viewer, and to me, the final image is NOT always the most important thing. And I know there are many other people like me who agree with this. So, I think your statement, while valid for the most part, is still a generalization that isn't always true.

---

Granted. I should have been more explicit about it being just my own point of view. I am not trying to say my approach is the only right one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

The process that an artist goes through to create an image is sometimes paramount to the experience, both for the creator as well as the viewer. This is just common sense. The STORY behind the image, be it what, how, when, who, or where adds imeasureably to the viewer connection and experience for many types of photography.

---

That's probably more of an Art Forum debate... I think we are talking about the meaning of an image and the ways an image can acquire a meaning. I tend to take the position that meaning must be "embedded" in an image (but see below about understanding) -- for you, it seems, much of meaning can come from outside of the image itself -- from it's "story".

I don't really object to your approach, I agree that the "story" can be (but not necessarily is) important. However, I guess I am wary of substituting a story for the image itself when external meaning is all there is and without a story to prop it up the image collapses. In such cases I would argue that the story itself is the main "work of art" and the image is just a supporting illustration to that story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

Also, the world of art is full of works that a lot people don't "get" until they learn about the piece and/or the artist and/or the circumstances of the work and then make an effort to understand why something is dynamic or emotional or political or whatever. A brilliant work is not always obvious to the casual viewer.

---

That's a bit of a different issue -- now we are talking about understanding of a certain piece of art. Obviously, some excellent images can be very very simple to understand, and others, no less excellent, images can demand long and deep thinking (not to mention years of education) to unravel their meaning.

However I want to draw a difference between knowing the story of this particular image, and knowing enough context (cultural, political, historical, etc.) to understand images of this kind in general. The second case has much more to do with the viewer and his capability to understand the image, rather than with the image itself...

Fey