The Wonderful World of Color

<p>I'm familiar with Wouter's process myself. Sometimes, I am able to determine in advance whether the finished photo will be in black and white or color. I like previsualizing but it's a very nuanced and hard skill to develop, not one that you're told to do and then, <em>voila</em>, you just do it. Times are increasing when I approach a situation or subject and say to myself, I'm motivated a great deal by color here, etc. or I'll ask myself how these colors will translate into a black and white vision I'm seeing. Often, lighting will suggest to me whether I will go black and white or color. Sometimes, it's obvious to my gut what I will do. But more often, I'm with you Wouter, not yet quite experienced enough to determine in advance which way I'm going.</p>

<p>There's plenty you can do in post processing these days to engage yourself in the black and white conversion method that will work well, even if you hadn't considered black and white yet. I find that process, in itself -- attending to the conversion process and what various colors do and how I can work with the different channels and tonalities in the conversion -- affects how I see more and more when I'm out shooting. It's a different way of learning from what others may have had access to experiencing. I find that allowing my shooting eye and my post processing eye to work together and teach each other is very challenging and I've been getting pretty good results. Making decisions during post processing that weren't made at the time of shooting has actually taught me a lot about color and b/w problem-solving. I think, with time, the astute observer and photographer will develop the previsualization skills necessary. No pressure on this. Friends of mine have even encouraged me to <em>practice</em> various skills as well as previsualizing, something I know about from being a musician but that's not often talked about in terms of photography. </p>

<p>Of course, sometimes a moment appears, I snap the shutter, and don't have time to consider the complexities of chromatic color scales and relationships. Sometimes I don't even have time to fully contemplate the composition or what gets put in the frame, i.e., I'm shooting a scene with traffic going by and accidentally the passing automobile is either in the perfect or not the perfect position, or it's not a matter of perfection and the car is just where it lands. (Sometimes, I have control and can wait for the desired position of the car, but a bus could come by in the other direction and ruin all that.) I decide later what the best way to handle that car is and it may even determine that I crop that picture to affect the positioning of the car. Had it been a yellow cab instead of a car that drove into my frame unexpectedly, that might very well dictate, later, whether I pursue color or black and white. Had the bus had streaks of orange that echoed the light of dawn I was shooting in, I might then decide color as well, after having taken the shot, or not if I was worried about cliché. </p>

<p>The flexibility of digital is one of its hallmarks. That we don't necessarily have to decide in advance whether we're shooting black and white can be a big advantage to allowing for many more choices at many more stages in the process, with much less compromise than what used to be. Some modes of previsualization can be as much a hindrance to creativity as they are a help. All depends on the individual.</p>

<p>I should add "All depends on the individual <em>and the situation.</em>"</p>

<p>I always appreciate the advice more experienced photographers give me and there's been some great advice given here. I keep it in mind but also explore where I'm at and try not to be in too much of a hurry. I don't pressure myself. The road to previsualization (to whatever extent we each seek to go there) begins with not previsualizing and then with degrees of it. Those stages are ones I learn from. While moving toward previsualization, I keep in mind there's a lot of stuff I can learn and a lot of creative avenues I can explore precisely from not previsualizing. I usually find myself right where I'm supposed to be.</p>

<p><strong>Fred typed- "</strong> There's plenty you can do in post processing these days to engage yourself in the black and white conversion method that will work well, even if you hadn't considered black and white yet."</p>

<p> That sounds great (we all want to maximize our options, don't we?), but in my experience it doesn't work that way because seldom does a B&W composition work equally well if you colorize it in PS. Nor do color compositions work well simply by conversion into B&W. Pull a Josh and try it with someone else's color work.</p>

<p>It's not that the technique doesn't work well (as I mentioned earlier, I compose in B&W mode, then go back to color raw for precisely that reason), it's the <em>compositions.</em> If your color compositions work the same in B&W, you're not aware of color because you're not weighing the composition accordingly. Cropping is an option, but to maximize the image, if you're not sure, shoot it both ways (compose one for B&W, and another for color).</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p>I am very happy to see the agreement above about pre-visualising in B&W as a distinct option from looking at an image as a colour result, a point which I have been making in several contributions to this thread, hopefully without going into too much detail and detracting from its obvious focus - colour photography.</p>

<p>To dot the i's of my thoughts on this: Nothing beats B&W film exposure at the present time for that purpose, and if one doesn't want to do wet darkroom work and prefers Photoshop or its equivalent, scanning film with the digital print route is fine. Of course, the latter is still burdened with the problems of the appearance of digital B&W prints under different light sources and in some cases ink bronzing. Despite that, the MF and LF film shooters are living in a great period.</p>

<p>Shooting in RAW is indeed the best choice with digi B&W rather than using in-camera or basic PS software. The colour filters I spoke of before with B&W films, used to modify the response to different colours, can be somewhat reproduced by colour channel mixing in the ultimate B&W conversion from colour. Again, too bad the manufacturers have not used the full ability of the sensor to register B&W, thus allowing far higher pixel densities than present with the same sensor (which has to divide sensor sites over three colours). The market for a B&W only camera would not be great, but I know of a lot of Leica shooters (a somewhat perverse crowd of which I am one) that have used their numerical Leica uniquely for B&W (the higher ISO response of my old M8 is bad in any case for colour, restricting me to low ISO exposures).</p>

<p>Try the Nik software (SilverEfex Pro) on their 15 or 30 day no-holds trial, if you want more control on your colour conversions. Some other software may also be good for this. Colour channel use in the conversion from RAW is good as well, but I can understand why many think in-camera or basic PS B&W conversions are "Blah", often yielding muddy or lifeless images. Again, it is a question of thinking about how colour relates to B&W. You have to work at getting the better result. But that is enjoyable and part of the craft, as Clive might say.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Try the Nik software (SilverEfex Pro) on their 15 or 30 day no-holds trial, if you want more control on your colour conversions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, SilverEfex Pro is excellent, I have the color version also. I use SilverEfex mainly for processing my black&white negative scans, and not so much for conversion from actual color negs / files.<br /> There was a camera from kodak on the market, 15 years or so ago or in the early 90's, and that had a black&white only sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 16, 2010; 12:09 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Colour channel use in the conversion from RAW is good as well, but I can understand why many think in-camera or basic PS B&W conversions are "Blah", often yielding muddy or lifeless images. Again, it is a question of thinking about how colour relates to B&W. You have to work at getting the better result. But that is enjoyable and part of the craft, as Clive might say.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wet B/W photography demanded tons of choices, too. There was no "one" way to do it .<br>

Different negative developers, positive developers, papers, enlarger settings, all contributed to a bland or great photo.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em> </em></p>

<p>The thing I like about black and white is that is it not natural, unless you're color blind. I think that because it is not natural that it forces your brain to think about it, and maybe that invokes a mental process that does not happen when you view a photograph in color. It seems to me that black and white photographs (in general) are much more passionate than color. Black and white photos evoke some kind of emotional response for me, maybe it's that I associate B&W with old memories. Also it seems to me that B&W draws much more attention to texture and detail than color. Color, in my opinion, has the temptation to be over-used to draw attention to itself, losing the other qualities of the photo that may be more apparent in black and white.</p>

<p>"I think that because it is not natural that it forces your brain to think about it, and maybe that invokes a mental process that does not happen when you view a photograph in color." (Charles). That is an interesting statement, although I would probably add a comma at the end of it, and write "unless the image is particularly striking and thought provoking, and/or the photographer has creatively used colour harmony, discord, lighting or other compositional effects."</p>

<p>"Different negative developers, positive developers, papers, enlarger settings, all contributed to a bland or great photo." (Bill). Perhaps we could add to those points the additional ones of selective use of dodging and burning, masking techniques, and the alteration of local contrasts by filtration in different regions of the projected image. But I understand what you are getting at, in terms of these craft post exposure approaches in making a B&W darkroom image. Fortunately, though, PS makes that possible now for colour images as well as digital B&W ones.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4579853">Charles Eagan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 16, 2010; 01:09 p.m.</p>

 

<p><em>The thing I like about black and white is that is it not natural,</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Even though I've been promoting the colour side of the argument this is about as straight forward as it gets because it acknowledges that things have changed, because when there was only B+W it was as natural as you could get.</p>

<p>For me Julie has nailed it again with her Line and Form post which could possibly be expanded a little with Line/edge/shape and Form/volume/space.</p>

<p>And her introduction of colour/space is crucial, that's the way each colour locates itself on, or in front of, or perceptually behind a picture plane, the obvious and most repeated quote on this is the old landscape painter's advice to students, "Never put red in the background as it will try to fly forwards" You only have to half squint at a row of books on bookshelf to notice how some colours come forward and others recede. As major issue in colour photography.</p>

<p>Story time: The mention of seeing how wierd reversed faces look reminds me of a really odd job I had a year or so ago, a woman asked me to do a "corporate" portrait photo of her, you know the kind of thing that co's put in annual reports and hand out to the press. I do the shoot and show the results to the client, they looked fine to me - but she said "It's all the wrong way around" my parting is on the other side - a bit of a discussion - and we realised her own perception of herself was what she saw in the mirror everyday, so she asked me to flip the picture to her own mirror view and was then much happier! It looked crazy to me.</p>

<p>Clive</p>

 

<p><br />"Personally, B/W or colour is a after-the-act decision, possibly because I never worked much with film at all,..." Wouter<br>

"... as for try to plan the shot more ahead, I am getting there. Still in a learning phase ..." Wouter<br>

<br />"I like previsualizing but it's a very nuanced and hard skill to develop, not one that you're told to do and then, voila, you just do it." Fred<br />"I find that process, in itself -- attending to the conversion process and what various colors do and how I can work with the different channels and tonalities in the conversion -- affects how I see more and more when I'm out shooting. It's a different way of learning from what others may have had access to experiencing [with film] ". Fred<br>

<br />I started and still am immersed in film alongside digital. I shoot them differently - but that is another story. I strong supporter of the benefits I find in previsualizing (or visualization depending on who turned you on to it.) I learned to hone the skill, (one of my best tools imo for certain photos) by thinking before shooting and comparing to my final product. These days with digital, new photographers have what I might consider an advantage ( for this context ). The easy access to color and near immediate results. I have often considered what I might label the disadvantages of having no wet darkroom experience. But for here and now it seems to me that Wouter and Fred (who have stated that the previsualization process is new and worth developing), or any diligent digital photographer, may have a stronger sense of the potentials of color and bw. It seems like a ripe time for learning to previsualize.<br>

Fred, I took particular interest your going to the conversion process. It seems that the there may be some real potential in building layers of color, localized work in channels and of course not just for conversions to bw but also in color. These new digital tools may, (why wouldn't it), open many new doors. As I browse PN and other sites I am finding myself more and more tuned in to discovering how it is being explored. <br />.<br />btw. Phylo, Lascaux cave paintings site was good stuff.</p>

<p><em>correction</em>."..any diligent digital photographer, <em>may have a stronger sense</em><em> of the potentials </em>of color and bw." josh<br /> should read; ... may develop a stronger sense of the potential and/or relationship...</p>

<p><strong>Josh</strong>, thanks. You've consolidated a lot of what I was trying to say and it's nice to hear someone as experienced and as well versed in film as you allowing for the new possibilities Wouter and I are facing. I hope you don't mind my using and piggybacking on some of your ideas in responding to Luis.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, I wasn't questioning the validity and/or significance of previsualization and of the benefits of eventually being able to shoot with b/w or color in mind. I was talking about how I <em>learn</em>. Because I think honing previsualization skills will take time, I am aware that I will be able to utilize that skill to a limited degree as I'm getting more used to it and better at it. So, I take that situation as a way to learn and I think what I learn along the way will affect how I eventually develop my own way of previsualizing. Like I said, for now, those times when I either do not or cannot previsualize can teach me a lot, especially with the advantages that a digital work flow can provide in terms of color control and conversion to black and white.</p>

<p>The unique aspects of shooting and post processing digitally already do and will continue to affect my way of previsualizing.</p>

<p>This may be opening a can of worms, but I wonder what people think. We've been emphasizing how important it is to visualize based on the different mediums (or whatever we want to call them) of b/w and color. To what extent, then, do we also recognize and work with the significant difference in developing b/w and color previsualization skills in a digital work flow, on the one hand, and a film workflow, on the other? Obviously, so much learned from film is invaluable when it comes to digital. It also seems likely to me that there are things about digital that cannot be gotten from applying film methods to digital . . . things unique to the digital work flow, skill set, and especially visualization. What I was pointing out after Wouter made his post were some instances where I think digital post-processing and the access to color that I have will distinctly make my experience of previsualizing unique and my own. Again, I wasn't setting up a competition between previsualizing and not previsualizing. I was talking about ways I learn.</p>

<p>[*I will likely stay open to the possibility that NOT previsualizing color or black and white might wind up the way for me to go in at least some cases. The only way I would make that determination would be to learn and hone the skill of previsualizing and then decide if I want to reject it in some cases as a way of seeing and shooting.*] </p>

<p>For me, it began with Kodachrome. There was no post-processing, it was all automated, so everything had to be up front. Composition, exposure, lighting, contrast, filtration, etc. had to be right, before releasing the shutter. This is an invaluable skill set to learn/have with either film or digital. With black and white, too.</p>

<p>A few years later, I bought a Pete Turner print, and spoke with him. He was very open about what he was doing, and afterwards, I immediately ran out and bought the same model Repronar he was using, and suddenly, I could lower/increase contrast, saturation, density, cropping, filtration, and more in post-processing. Of course, the simplest free PP program today does much more, but back in the Flintstone era it was a huge improvement and a portent of things to come.</p>

<p>______________________</p>

<p>Fred, I understand what you are saying about how you learn, no argument there. Also, that there's no competition regarding composing before releasing the shutter. We can both agree most people do that.</p>

<p>Another suggestion on learning.... As charming as remaining non-committal and in the nether-position of <em>becoming is, </em> composing generically has severe shortcomings and cannot always be corrected by cropping in PP. In art as in life, making specific decisions, saying yes to this, not that, and <em>being </em> matters.<br /> _____________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Pre-visualisation has always been for me the mental process I go through when considering how I will render a selected scene, that is, how I intend to make the image. I pre-visualize the elements of that image and also what I probably will have to do downstream (PS or darkroom), once the exposure is made.</p>

<p>As such it has little to do with whether it is digital or film media. The pre-visualisation in both cases is quite similar, although the technology of image capture may be different. Those who work in both realize that post exposure manipulations in each, whether film or digital, are very similar, although in one case, for B&W film and paper work, the various post exposure methods of exposure, burning, dodging, re-framing, selective contrast control, and other, are done in the darkrom, whereas, with the digital post exposure they are done in Photoshop or an equivalent software. </p>

<p>Accordingly, what I have learned to do with pre-visualisation and capture on film has been transposed very readily to digital. When I consider colours, compositional elements, lighting, the particular placement and angle of my camera, and all the other emotional and conceptual thoughts related to the making of an image, I am pre-visualising in exactly the same manner in film as in digital capture.</p>

<p>In the specific case of B&W, I find it completely counter-intuitive and even nonsensical to undertake the pre-visualisation in the context of a colour image, and then arbitrarily convert it to a B&W image at some later point. My pre-visualisation activity is similar for digtal or film, but it is quite different for the making of a successful B&W image, as compared to the pre-visualisation considerations that go into my making a colour image.</p>

<p>I know this doesn't apply to most readers of this column, but perhaps the automatism and facility of "taking" a picture interferes with our mental pre-visualisation in "making" a picture. Trying to ressurect a less than well-conceived image downstream in Photoshop is a lot more arduous, even poorly conceived, than making the specific decisions before clicking the shutter. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"As charming as remaining non-committal and in the nether-position of <em>becoming is</em>" <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was a condescending thing to say.</p>

<p>"Charming"?</p>

<p>I think commitment is good and I'll make a commitment and take a stand when I think it's appropriate. Exploration is also good. And I will continue to explore shooting that does not always commit to color or b/w in advance. It will depend on the photograph, the situation, the spontaneity I need, where I'm at on my learning curve, and what I've learned I can accomplish in post processing that allows me freedom and flexibility, which are as desirable as commitment. Like most things, different balances will be struck. I'm not going to box myself in.</p>

<p>There are two applications of "commitment" here. One is committing to a color or a b/w composition when we're shooting, which I just addressed. And one is a committment to previsualization itself, and I'm in a process of becoming on that score. I'm comfortable with that and don't see it as a "nether-position." Are you saying that "learning" is a nether-position of becoming? I hope not.</p>

<p>What exactly are you referring to when you talk about charming non-committal and becoming?</p>

<p>How did you learn how to previsualize? As Josh said, by looking at your product and learning from that? That's what I'm doing.</p>

<p>I have learned and continue to learn things about previsualizing from seeing my results and then from digital post processing, specifically from color conversions . . . among other things. I'm glad I've been open to that. I've been very committed to that and stay committed because I have learned so much by doing it and because I can see the progress in my work. While being committed, however, I've been open . . . to good teachers, good ideas, and especially to digital as a process with some distinct characteristics. I commit to my compositions in camera when I can. I am also committed to getting the most out of situations in which I don't have either the desire, the need, or the experience necessary to commit to color or b/w in advance. When I say "getting the most out of those situations" I mean, firstly, getting some darned good photos. Secondly, learning that, with digital, it may not always be necessary or even desirable to determine color choices in advance. Thirdly, being willing to <em>learn</em> from situations where it might have been better to previsualize had I been experienced enough to do so.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Accordingly, what I have learned to do with pre-visualisation and capture on film has been transposed very readily to digital. . . . I am pre-visualising in exactly the same manner in film as in digital capture."</p>

<p>"I find it completely counter-intuitive and even nonsensical. . ." <strong>--Arthur</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, thanks for your answer. It's too bad we can't sit down and have a cup of coffee together. I think we'd have a better understanding of each other. At least I hope so.</p>

<p>What you say about previsualization makes sense. I understand that the previsualization transposes well from your film experience to your use of digital technology and process. I am reminded of music. Methods of learning the harpsichord would transfer so well to methods of learning the piano. And yet, each has its unique characteristics that I'd want to explore in depth and in their own right.</p>

<p>The deliberateness in shooting you describe seems appropriate to what you're doing and to what I observe in your work. It wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for or appealing to me and wouldn't even be available to me in many instances because of the kind of shooting I do. This is not any kind of judgment. I think it's just a natural and genuine difference between us and what we're doing. I certainly don't see your way of doing things as <em>nonsensical</em>. I respect it.</p>

<p>Thanks for your appreciation Fred ( in the streetdoc thread, but posting my reply here seems more fit ), I can appreciate much of how you seem to make portraits always <em>work</em> so "effortlessly", as I see evidenced in the endphotographs. But I guess as the photographer I'm not any more responsible for the embedding of the mental trigger in the photograph as the actual subject that is photographed is responsible for <em>making </em>the photograph. Not any more, not any less. Like the "Drawing Hands". I think this is also applicable in the viewing and experience of color as form, as well as content.</p>

<p>A long overdo supper with friends last night saw the opportunity to consume a fair amount of modest but good wine (happily they could walk back to their own little Canadian cabin in the boonies after all that and avoid having to drive) and to engage in animated discussions about what inspires the personal philosophy and view of mankind of each of us. Accordingly, it was perhaps not the best time after the evening and at 1:00 AM to write a comment to your most interesting thread, Fred, and not appropriate either to use a qualificative like nonsensical.</p>

<p>No approach is nonsensical if it fits the aims of the photographer. Without putting too much "mea" in my "mea culpa", in the wake of my remark, I simply think it is more useful to work out the possibilities of B&W or colour in my mind during the pre-visualisation of what I would like the final result to be, but I don't deny that many excellent B&W pictures result from a spontaneous conversion from a colour image later. My own photographic approach is fairly deterministic, and I am trying to become more free, a bit more arbitrary, and definitely more experimental in my approach.</p>

<p>Yes, it would be a pleasure to meet you and have a coffee and chat. That is also true for many fellow photonetters, who like you provide a communication of ideas to me that is important to my learning and practice of this passionate activity. I have always thought that photographers are a group of people who are among the most connected to our human society.</p>

<p>First of all, thanks for all the responses. There is a lot to chew on and learn from, and I am grateful for that. It's also interesting to see the "process"-side of B&W-versus-Colour a bit more.<br />The previsualisation, to me it's a fascinating process, maybe partially because it's early stages for me (I am relatively new to photography), but also because it requires quite a lot of baggage. It's where most of the things discussed here can (and should?) come together: intent, interaction with the subject (or lack thereof), composition, identification of symbols to amplify intent, use of colours, and if so, which ones. There is a good reason to admire photographers who master this, or most of it.<br>

<br />Luis,<br />Why is "becoming" non-committal? You take a step there I miss. Becoming, to me, means travel. With an start point and an end point. Which means, to me, there is commitment, to get somewhere else. It's the essence of learning. <em>Being</em> is non-committal, <em>becoming</em> takes commitment. Being is in this sense, is just a snapshot in time.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> That was a condescending thing to say. "Charming"?</p>

<p> I apologize, but I meant it does have its attractive creative qualities, the status of multiple potentials available to the photographer. I fully accept the way you choose to do things, Fred. I said that at the outset, so I wasn't suggesting you change anything. You are a very convincing person, and I wanted to make sure Wouter grasped that there are limits, strengths and weaknesses to every method, yours and mine included.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> I'm not going to box myself in."</p>

<p> As far as I can see, no one is interested in you doing that.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> Are you saying that "learning" is a nether-position of becoming?"</p>

<p> Not at all. I'm saying that becoming and being are both useful. A cloud of creative possibilities is one thing, but in the end, the artist one way or another collapses that cloud into one finished work or series.</p>

<p>I am also saying that not everything can be decided or fixed in post-processing.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> How did you learn how to previsualize?"</p>

<p> By doing. There were a lot more creative controls/options with B&W than with color at the time, which is one of the reasons (besides the expense) that artists were drawn to it.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> Secondly, learning that, with digital, it may not always be necessary or even desirable to determine color choices in advance."</p>

<p> That is where we differ. You throw in the "always", which I won't touch. However, if, in general, color or B&W do not affect a composition, then what you say can lead to great pictures (and raises big whopping questions about color & B&W).</p>

<p>If, in general, color does affect a composition, then what you're saying is not true. If color or B&W weighs into composing, a generically shot composition will fall short for <em>either</em> post- decision, and no amount of PP can bring in what didn't reach the sensor or film) though of course, as a compromise, it will work almost always better for one than the other.<em></em><br>

<em> The teaching value of conversions is perfectly clear to me..<br /> </em></p>

<p>Your modus does not seem <em>nonsensical</em> but ineffective, since generic approaches seldom result in great photographs.</p>

<p>What I was advocating was not negating either possibility, but if one is not sure, making specific compositions and photographing it both ways. Yes, this stems from the film era. It's not an archaic practice, but a viable one in the digital age, and for the same reasons.</p>

<p>In other words, not either/or as you suggest here: "Secondly, learning that, with digital, it may not always be necessary or even desirable to determine color choices in advance."</p>

<p> But also/and, leaving choices still open. We are not as far apart as you think. What's wrong with pouring passion and creativity into every inch of the creative path(s)? Getting as much as possible up front, though that does not mean a straitjacketed previsualization by any means. It means getting as many variations as one may need up front, and availing oneself of possibilities in PP as well. All of the above.</p>

<p> Yes, this would be a lot easier across a table...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are a very convincing person, and I wanted to make sure Wouter grasped that there are limits, strengths and weaknesses to every method, yours and mine included.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No worries, I'm well aware any process has pros and cons.<br>

We posted at the same time, you already answered my previous question in this last post, thanks.</p>

<p>Just a detail, but the use of the term post production (PP) in photography seems awkward and inaccurate to me. I prefer the term post exposure (PE?), as it seems to me to more accurately describe the actions we take to complete our concept of the image after those of pre-visualisation and exposure, whether they are digital adjustments to the image by PhotoShop or via the wet darkroom. Post production would simply be the presentation and viewing of the image.</p>

<p>If I remember correctly, Ctein, of the "Photo Techniques" magazine group of writers, produced a book of such techniques, which he titled "Post Exposure."</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, the reason I referred to your photos as "made" as compared to the others on that thread is because they have more layers to them and reach a depth the others' photos don't. Some of the others shot interesting subjects and did not get photos that look as good or touch me as much as yours. As a matter of fact, most fell to my eyes with a thud. So I assume more is going on than what the subject emits or what the subject is responsible for, and I attribute that to the photographer. As viewer, I play a role as well in how I see it and feel about it. For me, that doesn't diminish the role of the photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 17, 2010; 10:16 a.m.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Just a detail, but the use of the term post production (PP) in photography seems awkward and inaccurate to me.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, it should seem awkward beccause the term is incorrect. The term is a motion picture and audio recording term, where a lot of "detailing" is done in "post".<br />The terms used in photography are "pre-press" or "pre-print", which indicate the work done to a negative, positive, or a file to make it ready for the printing process, whether it's an individual print, a series of prints, a magazine layout, etc.. "Preprint" is a term also used in the science community.<br />Bill P.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm certainly not diminishing my<em>self</em> as the photographer, or myself as the <em>I </em>that plays an integral part in my photographic output of myself being a photographer ( or you "being it" or anyone else ) of course not. But the <em>more is going on</em> thing you're talking about I view as precisily <em>that</em> thing which can be described as the symbioses between photographer and subject, where both subject and photographer play an equal role in feeding each other. I think this is uniquely to photography as a possible medium of expression and what makes it so interestingly, lovingly, perfectly elusively straaange to me, and I'll bet to some million others, give or take a few.</p>

<p>" Just like one guy can write a sentence and it's beautiful and another one can write it and it's dead. What that difference is, I don't know "</p>

<p>Harry Callahan</p>

<p>Nicely said, Phylo!</p>