Discussion: Taking vs. making an image

I was just quickly reading though <a

href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml">this

article at Luminous Landscape"></a> about image making. Is this really

what photography has come down to or will evolve to? Is

post-processing taking over from actually making the exposure? </p>

 

I don't know how and why you make photographs, I simply do it to

document life as it goes by, mostly making exposures around my family

and our little adventure called life. To not make the final result

purely an act of chance or machine, and to allow myself a bit of

challenge in a hobby, I prefer to use manual cameras, thus some amount

of pride goes into being able to make a "correct" exposure. I prefer

prime lenses, no flash, my prints are pretty uneventful, I don't ask

for a lot of dodge and burning, normally no cropping, prefer black &

white etc. - one might even called it a minimal type of available

light documentary photography (if I was into labels...) </p>

 

But what do you think? Will post-processing and Photoshopping take

over photography? It seems like it is mostly/all about the end result

? the image ? and less and less about the journey of taking that

photography?

Patrick, I agree with your approach. Photography for many of us is a personal process, like religion or politics. We do it to please some sort of inner ego that doesn't require perfection or acclamation, only the satisfaction of finding within it the scent or other hint of familiarity that makes it our own.

For those of us that actually studied photography, in the old days as well as the new, it's always been about post-processing. I learned to develop and print at the same time I started shooting. So did lots of people who have been very successful at becoming recognized as photographers outside the commercial space. The idea that photography is somehow disconnected from the final product comes from people who haven't ever had to really produce a fine print, show a fine print, deliver a finished image. I think a lack of craft on the finishing end results from a half-baked view of photography. That doesn't mean someone can't have fun doing it, but it sure isn't what's made the great, or even good, photographs of the last 170 years.

I agree with Jeff. I've always considered what I did in the camera to be the first 50% of the finished product. And this far predates Photoshop. Read about Man Ray (his rayograms and solarizations techniques), what Eugene Smith (a much celebrated documentary photographer) did post camera, and many others and you'll soon come to realize that very few of the images we all know are straight (no darkroom manipulation) images. Neither way is right or wrong...it just is.

I kind of agree with Jeff but going along with the times. Today there seems to be such oversaturation with photographs that (for me) anything 'propped' in post processing deservers less respect than seeing and appreciating the perfect exposure coupled with perfect composition and content.

What makes you think that the raw image recorded on a piece of film is the most accurate representation of the original scene? Film has its own idiosyncrasies which are compounded by the vagueries of developing and printing. More often than not, the prints that I get back from my minilab are a great disappointment, because they do not convey what I saw through the viewfinder of my camera. Seen this way, post-processing is mainly an attempt to recreate what I visualized when I released the shutter. I am compensating for the deficiencies of the film. Add to that the desire to create "art," and it's hard for me to see any reason not to use Photoshop to the best of my abilities. All this is part of the "journey" that is photography.

There's nothing wrong with post processing as long as it is done tastefully. Think of Man

Ray, his photography can hardly be described as traditional. Ansel Adams paid a lot of

attention to his printing and many of his photographs would not have the same impact if

not for the outstanding post processing. Even in the traditional darkroom when your

dodging and burning we're adding a lot of impact to a print. Richard Avedon prints are

fantastic, but he made (or had made) many versions of prints before he was happy.

 

My concern is that with PS being available now to legions of people that we will see an

erosion of good taste. If I look at the portraiture that a lot of the American professionals

now shoot and sell it sents shivers down my spine. The skin oversoftened, colour

saturation that makes velvia look bland, black and white conversion that make every shot a

muddy bland pile of sort of mono prints that they sell as sepia.

 

Ah well, whatever makes the photographer happy I guess.

I remember talking to a 'digital' guy who was trying to get everybody and his dog to admire his latest 'effort'.

 

I asked 'Did you take that picture?"

 

"Yes", he answered confidently, "I took it from..." and he gave me the URL from where he had lifted it!

 

He was certainly 100% post-processing but I don't think you could call him a 'photographer'!

However, photoshop is making every a little too manipulative so that people no longer

think about the pictures they take.

In the darkroom you can only do so much so that you can still recognize the orginal

image.

 

At the end I do think photoshopping with take over most of photography. It just gets too

easy. Oh yeah and its also because people dont like goin out to do things anymore.

Photoshopping can be done right at home without you gettting your hands dirty.

The "too easy" argument is ridiculous. The funny thing is that there are always posts saying that Photoshop is "too hard." However, plenty of people made over-manipulated and sloppy images in the darkroom. Making a great print (or image, whatever) still depends on photographic insight, vision, and style. Suggesting otherwise implies acceptance of something that isn't good. In the end, great photography is about how the photographer conceives the final result, not the particular tools chosen to do the job.

 

However, it does make some things accessible to a broader base, and that is a good thing. If photography still required being a chemist and carrying huge glass plates and a lab everywhere, everyone here would probably be doing something else.

If Jeff and Bob (far above) are (or better - were -) right, then C-B would only be half a photographer because he never much cared about post-processing his pictures. Never made it into the darkroom ...

 

So something is wrong in their approach. Post processing is not necessary, if the pictures themselves hold up. (Light, subject, composition, technically etc)

 

But one can surely make "nice" beautified art through PS. Of course, except these are imagined images, not images of the real world. Chagall comes to mind; wonderful images he made. Those PS artists of this day are so much less successful, though. Maybe in 20 years we will see real processed photographic art that pleases the eye and soul. Old un-processed photography has done this "pleasing" for 100+ years. Of course using PS that well will take a few generations.

Maybe we should be admiring the National Geographic photographers who for many years shot nothing but Kodachrome, at most adding some slight color correction filtering at the time of exposure. I burn and dodge to try to recreate what I saw. I've already been through the Jerry Uelsmann stage many years ago. It isn't me. Still, when a client has the check book open I try to oblige. For personal work I'm very straight forward.

I don't know if it was addressed to me but I wasn't making a distinction between digital post processing and analong post processing. My point encompassed both technologies. IMHO there is something to be said for a shot printed in it's entirety (call it full frame) that captures the scene, the essence, has the right exposure and the right composition.

When one can afford a great printer and can develop a working relationship over a number of years, it is possible to have someone else do it. However, that option isn't open to many...

So is photography [becoming] image at any cost? If major components can be adjusted in post-processing, everything from color, background, light, blur, saturation, contrast, add/subtract people and objects - rain - what have ya' - is that still photography? the process of capturing light and making an exposure?

 

hence, i'm not saying that post-processing does not has a valid place in photogrpahy - analog or digital - but it seems like we are drifting towards image/end-result-at-all-costs, if that makes sense.

 

seems like the best advice to give anyone who wants to explore photography is to buy a book on Photoshop. Camera and lens may or may not be needed...

I love guys like Frank. Because I don't do it 'your' way, I'm 'wrong'. Just what we need, another self appointed god. Re-read my post Frank...I specifically said neither way is right or wrong...just different. Jeeesh.

Photoshop makes photography "too easy" in much the same way that planes, trains, and automobiles make travel "too easy." <p><p>

 

The availability of low-cost, computer-based, post-processing tools is a good thing, even though not every image produced using these tools will be a good photograph.<p><p>

 

Jeff has written previously about photography as a "democratizing force." I would encourage those who missed his remarks and references, which were offered in the course of the 24th discussion addressing Leica's financial straits, to see <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BFYs>this thread</a>.

another example, wedding photogrpaher <a href="http://www.jeffascough.com/">jeff ascough</a> shots with C41 film if I remember correctly, regardless, he shoots film exactly because he doesn't want to be too much time in post-processing. hard to ignore the quality of his end result...

C-B wasn't a printer but he also wasn't uncaring about how his photos were printed. You don't have to steer the ship yourself to be the captain.

 

Each new shift in technology causes changes in the way photographers do their thing. Few of us were around to feel the earth move when the 35mm format became dominant, though move it did. But yesterday's upstart becomes today's mainstream becomes tomorrow's has-been. That's just how it works. My feeling is the photographic cream will rise to the top regardless of the tools & technology used at any particular time. Sturgeon's Law applies to photography as much as anything else. Always has.

 

-Dave-

<I>What makes you think that the raw image recorded on a piece of film is the most accurate representation of the original scene?</i><P>Good point. Exellent point really, although getting Leica users to admit classic B/W photography is some of the most processed imagery in the history of photography is a classic experiment in admission of being in chronic denial.<P>I was browsing through the one of the 'elite' B/W shooters portfolios here, which was the typical journalistic approach to small format B/W photography. I'd say 70% of this guys work was heavily dodged and burned to the point you could expect the main subject to have a glowing halo around it as the photographer burned the hell out of the background of each image.<P>I mean, I'd say the majority of 'famed' small format B/W film imagery I've seen has the background burned in. That's not what bugs me - what bugs me is even if the technique is really bad and obvious, such as leaving a halo around you main subject, it's accepted as fine art. I'm sure Jeff has an idea of the genre' I'm talking about. Need I bring up Ansel Adam's boring and bland landscape work for the Dept of Energy. Lacking his aggresive dodging and burning, the images aren't very interesting. God forbid on the other hand a pixel out of place in a digital image.<P>To best answer Patrick's question, all I can tell him is my digital capture has less manipulation going on than when I used to print B/W commercially, and they are far truer to the original scene. The question then becomes one of fiddling around in a darkroom vs fiddling around on your computer, and guessing by the bigoted responses from classic film shooters in regards to anybody doing it differently (better) than they are, it's not worth wasting my time bringing up.

I also believe for shooters like Scott Eaton it really does NOT matter how you arrive at the photograph. The question then becomes, does anybody really care about that photograph and to what degree?

 

I would venture to guess that with the oversaturation of photography in our lives 99% of the shots do not matter at all. If the shots aren't for documentary's sake then they matter even less. Because today it is far too easy to produce decent shot of the stunning Grand Canyon then the value of such photograph diminishes unless of course it is a stunning photograph that was produced with skill and no post processing.

If we look back at the 1950's and 1960's when 35mm was first making inroads in news photography and "available light" was the buzzword films were not what we take for granted now. 400 speed films like Hp3 and Tri-X were as grainy, or more grainy, than today's highest speed films. Lenses were slower, and the few available fast decent ones cost a month's salary. That's the era that brought us UFG, Acufine, and Diafine, all three being concoctions of chemist Harold Bauman. They all allowed fast processing and increased film speed with very decent grain.

 

Still, when you started out with a negative made with a single coated lens prone to flare, rated your film two or three stops higher than the manufacturer suggested, you ended up with a negative that looked nothing like the "ideal negative" that Kodak expected you to be able to print straight on grade two paper. You had blocked highlights and thin shadow areas that tantalized you because you could see that there was in fact some visible image there.

 

Starting with DuPont Varigam one by one the paper makers introduced variable contrast papers. Soon people started experimenting with split filter printing. This wasn't to be creative! It was just to get an image that your paper could put on page one. You learned that you could get more detail in the bright areas by printing through a lower contrast filter, but sometiimes you'd have to "bump" it with a high contrast filter to keep it from looking to muddy. A high contrast filter could pick up seperation in those underexposed shadow areas.

 

Yes, we learned to burn and dodge. If we wanted a printable image we had little choice. It wasn't to be creative. It was to get the job done!

Jeff Ascough has posted several times in the Wedding Photography Forum regarding his choice of equipment. He used to shoot with EOS film cameras. He doesn't particularly care for flash and didn't like the big, heavy, bulky SLRs. That is why he switched to Leicas. What is crucal to wedding photographers, because of the large number of pictures they shoot for a given event, is work flow. For him he has a very good, long time working relationship with his lab. For him film has worked well. It should be noted that he has added digital into his coverage for reception work.

 

As far as making images goes, once one isn't doing PJ/Documentary and is doing commercial photography, images are created. You work with editors or art directors, models, lighting, sets, props and create the type of image that is requested. In the past most of it was done in camera and now more of it is being done in post production.

Friedlander would be so much better if he'd spent a little time with Photoshop. He could clone out all those telegraph poles and lampposts that ruin some nicely observed street shots.

 

;-)

I use Photoshop, and I am neither "being creative" with it nor "being true" to the scene. I'm

just trying to make the picture as good as it can be!

 

See attachments.<div></div>