Photoshop was created 28
years ago in 1988. Since then Photoshop
and its many derivatives have become an essential part of photography with a
great level of importance. Its ability to
enhance photographs and to manipulate the image is well known. Photoshop certainly is much more than just an
electronic retouching tool.
Unfortunately it is also
misused by many. The relative ease of
manipulating a photograph has led many to mistakenly believe that it is also a
tool to correct mistakes that were made when taking the picture. As a matter of fact it has led to unqualified
picture takers to market themselves as professional photographers, especially
when combined with modern automatic everything cameras.
While Photoshop is certainly
capable of manipulating photographs to quite an extend, it is still an absolute
necessity to have basic photographic skills.
Composition and design are as important today as they were in the past,
as are lighting and posing. Today's automated camera controls can in no way make up for those skills and neither
can Photoshop.
The following are good examples of how things can go wrong. This was a case of an all-controlling father of the bride who considered himself a professional wedding photographer and who insisted on not only arranging the group, but he also insisted on the photograph being taken at this particular location. The fact that a wedding party photographed with a background of a cemetery is less than ideal obviously eluded him. Photoshop saved the day when I was asked to move the wedding party to a much more appropriate background. Of course all of this could have been avoided by better photographic skills on part of the father in the first place.
A while ago I got into a
discussion with a colleague about digital photography and Photoshop on the
internet. He still prefers to use film
and argued that all pictures should be shown “the way the camera saw them, the
way they come out of the camera” and he went on to say that Photoshop should
not be used.
I definitely disagree with
that and answered:
“Why? Digital
photography and Photoshop have considerably lowered my overhead (no film to
buy, no processing costs) and I have full control over the final looks of my
images instead of having to rely on some lab’s idea about what my images should
look like. Film is a thing of the
past. Just because Photoshop is
available doesn't mean that the photographer doesn’t need the same skills as in
the film days. Composition, lighting
etc. are still as important as ever.
Shooting digital is essentially nothing more than using a different
means to record the image. The addition
of Photoshop has enabled us to control the final outcome of our photographs to
a greater degree than ever before which, when used correctly, will ultimately
deliver the best quality images possible.”
He answered:
“However, when you change that image to some other
image, then it is a second image. I know
what you are saying above but I also know that you change some of your images
to make them into something else.....and so do others. I just happen to think that the original
image is what the end result should be.”
I answered:
“I understand what you are saying. However, just because Photoshop has the
ability to substantially alter an original image doesn’t mean that its use will
always lead to that. Photoshop offers
the ability to ‘tweak’ our photographs to ultimately end up with better
results. We have the ability to alter
contrast and color saturation, both of which are much easier to do with
Photoshop than during the film days. In
the past photographers routinely retouched their photographs to reduce
blemishes, for instance. Photographers
used changes in exposure and development to reduce or increase contrast. Are these accepted methods really any
different than using Photoshop to obtain the same results? Isn’t either approach effectively altering the
image from what the camera saw? Then, of
course, there is the question of what the ultimate purpose of taking a
photograph is. Isn’t the final image, as
envisioned by the photographer, what counts?
In the past we used methods like solarization, for instance. That certainly is a considerable departure
from what the initial photograph looked like, the same goes for posterization
or bas relief images, all of which were routinely used to create photographic
art beyond the original image as it came out of the camera. If those methods were okay in the past, then
why isn’t the use of Photoshop acceptable as a means to create pieces of art
derived from otherwise ordinary photographs?
Even simple cropping is altering an image beyond what originally came
out of the camera. Since none of us is
perfect, we naturally get often useless photographs because of a variety of
reasons. In many cases Photoshop has
enabled me to save such photographs with the help of Photoshop. I see that as a benefit”.
I have come across similar
opinions fairly often and I wonder if it is really a conviction or if it is
more a resistance to change, combined with an underlying fear of learning a new
method of working with our photographs.
To which extend Photoshop
or similar programs are going to be used is ultimately a personal
preference. However, it is a tool that
should not be rejected off hand. If we
are honest about our own work, most of us probably reject or throw away more of
our photographs than we save and with digital photography that ratio has most
likely increased. But with Photoshop we
also have the possibility to save an otherwise useless picture and make it into
something worth keeping.
This is a picture my wife
took at a wedding. The original was
nothing special and it was almost deleted.
However, after taking a closer look, she asked me to apply my Photoshop
skills. I tightly cropped the group to
remove as much as possible of the clutter in the room which was further
eliminated with various Photoshop tools.
I then modified the image to give it a painting like appearance. The final result certainly is not at all what
came out of the camera, but it is a photograph worth keeping. As it turned out, it is one of the favorites
of the bride.
This photograph was taken
by my father in Hamburg in 1949. He
enhanced the sunrays in the background by carefully applying graphite dust to
the rays on the negative to lighten them in the final enlargement and thus make
them stand out more.
Two photographs, both
manipulated to allow for a better end-result; photographs that would have less
impact, which would be visually less pleasing had they not been enhanced. There should be no question that Photoshop or
conventional retouching are means that enable us to make our photographs better
than what our cameras are capable of doing by themselves. I consider that something very worthwhile.
________________________________________________________________________________________
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/affiliates.aspx?code=AP-969
For more information on KOMARU and for orders go to: www.taos-photographic.com
NEW Komaru Colors
For more information and pre orders go to: www.lenstab.com
For more information on KOMARU and for orders go to: www.taos-photographic.com
NEW Komaru Colors
For more information and pre orders go to: www.lenstab.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Click on image to enlarge
Order: info@gmpphoto.com
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
I hope the individual that wants to use his images like they come out of the camera has extensive knowledge about photography. Otherwise he is ending up with a lot of questionable pictures, many of which could probably be improved with Photoshop.
ReplyDeleteI am all in favor of trying to prevent mistakes when taking a picture to eliminate post processing as much as possible. Saves a lot of time. But to argue against perfecting a photograph by electronic or other means is misguided.
DeleteReader Abellera Fotografia commented on the LEICA Barnack Berek Blog presence on Facebook:
ReplyDeleteGood article...I feel like so many of the past photographers using film and now digital. That the image we see starts from our MINDS and how it could be using FILTRATION (if B/W...red, orange, green, yellow filters or nd filters or split nd filters). Like you stated changing contrast in camera or using different grade papers when PRINTING or in computer. Using our skill and knowledge transferring it to camera making the adjustments for that image we see. Than processing in darkroom or computer to bring out the high lights or shadows...than SELECTIVE DODGING & BURNING to bring out the Final Image. My Mentor...Ansel Adams. The difference between than and now is the TIME FACTOR involved in dodging n burning and screwing up...in Photshop it's a matter of going through History States and click 1 step back and in Darkroom cursing up a storm and starting over HAHA
philcycles commented:
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against post production. I was an audio post production engineer.
I am, however, against the over use of post production. You can be left with an image which has an air of unreality to it. If that's what you want great but just because these tools exist doesn't mean they should always be used.
I agree. That's what I basically said in my article. I do, however, view Photoshop as a very good tool to improve your images on a variety of levels, like color balance, contrast, blemishes... Overuse of Photoshop, as you said, will inevitably lead to unreal images which have nothing much to do with the original photo.
DeleteAllen David Valentine Burdoin-Maunes commented on the LEICA Barnack Berek Blog presence on Facebook:
ReplyDelete"Digital photography and Photoshop have considerably lowered my overhead (no film to buy, no processing costs)." So instead of having a film camera that can be used to take outstanding photographs for a lifetime, you use digital cameras that have to be frequently upgraded, computers to buy and keep up to date, software to buy or rent (as in the case of Photoshop nowadays). It's hard to believe that you have lowered your overhead. Indeed, the opposite seems to be much more likely.
I have never replaced any of my digital cameras, never had the need to do so. I had a computer a long time before switching to digital photography. Of course I have updated my computer system from time to time, but that has not been the case because of digital photography. The only photography specific software I use is Photoshop. That has more than paid for itself because I don't have to pay a lab to perfect my prints, and doing my own printing of course is a huge money saver. So, yes, I have lowered my overhead considerably. In addition Photoshop allows me substantially more control over the eventual outcome of my photographs. Were I to do that through a lab, the cost would be astronomically.
DeleteMr. Allen David Valentine Burdoin-Maunes is obviously convinced that film is the way to go. Of course that is his choice, but to make silly statements as to the advantages of film photography is, quite frankly, silly. Just the examples you showed, especially the one with the wedding party, would be prohibitive in terms of cost if that had been done by a lab.
DeleteI also think that he is far from being a professional photographer.
DeleteI just wonder why he thinks that digital cameras need to be replaced "frequently."
DeleteIndeed. Of course if one always wants to own the newest and the latest, frequent replacement is necessary. But in terms of actually working with a digital camera, that is a myth perpetuated by the film crowd. I bought my first digital camera 12 years ago and it is still working as well as on day one and continues to do excellent work in the hands of my wife. While I have bought more current equipment, I did so because of additional capabilities of the camera, not out of necessity.
Delete