The Portland Metro Photographic News
Photography News,
Commentary and Events
from the Pacific Northwest
Photo News Blog
Can we get over this Photoshop thing?
|
|
by Tom Hubbard, PMPN, July 28, 2009
- Cropping
- Burning in
- Dodging
- Correcting color balance
- Enlarge image size
- Reduce image size
- Rotate & Invert image
- Intentional image distortion
- Correct distortion & parallel lines
- Eliminate background/isolate subject
- Masking
- Combine mulitple images
- Remove dust spots
- Remove unwanted objects
- Increase/decrease saturation
- Increase/decrease contrast
- Increase/decrease brightness
- Boost ISO rating
- High Dynamic Range compensation
- Decrease grain/noise
- Increase grain/noise
- Size image for print reproduction
- Produce separated image for color CMYK print reproduction
- Convert color images to black and white
- Add special effects & filtration
- Posterize
- Reticulate
- Add graduated backgrounds
- Add text to images.
Quite an impressive list of features for any modern digital imaging software. Together, they represent the features most often used in the day-to-day workflow of a Photoshopper. However, the operations shown above were not taken from a Photoshop manual. They are all functions that traditional film-based photographers and darkroom technicians have been performing for more than a century.
Almost every technique today's digital photographers are performing in their cameras or in their digital darkrooms is based on the same needs as film and darkroom-based photography. Even today's fascination with High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography is the digital equivalent solution to the problem of dealing with lighting ratios greater than the film (or sensor) is capable of recording with detail in one single exposure. Where Ansel Adams and other perfection-driven photo artists used variable film development times and temperatures, intensification and reduction techniques to address this problem, today's digital software combines multiple exposures at different apertures to gain similar dynamic range enhancements. Same problem. Different approaches to a solution.
Today, these often historically tedious artistic and technical alterations are performed on the computer using programs like Photoshop. But what has really changed? Very little. The photographic reasons we used these tools in the 1970s are the same reasons we use their digital cousins in the 21st century -- to correct imperfections, expand the capabilities of the camera and to allow the photographer's vision to become reality.
Then what has the digital revolution contributed? Much. Today, software allows photographers to perform these tasks and manipulations quicker, more precisely and with absolute repeatability. More importantly, the digital environment has freed photographers and technicians from the drudgery, the cost and the less-than-healthy conditions of the chemical-laden darkroom. Except as a brief educational experience to gain an understanding of the roots of photography, would any photographer today want his/her child to entertain the notion of making a full-time career amidst the fumes of a developer, stop bath, bleach, fixer atmosphere in a traditional chemical darkroom? It's doubtful.
So digital photography and computer imaging is a next-step solution, and along the way, it has provided us with a few new creative tools. Digital is just the next phase in the evolution of photography -- as film was to glass plates.
Can the ease and simplicity of digital imaging cause some photographers to go overboard -- too much manipulation, too much enhancement, too far from the original image? The answer probably resides with the photographer and the viewer. I might say "yes". But others might see these actions as another avenue to artistic expression.
Neither film/chemical-based photography nor digital photography have the ability to make a bad photograph good. Photography is still photography. All the creative "rules" of composition, style, light and technical excellence continue to apply.
So, instead of debating whether digital cameras and software like Photoshop have corrupted the "purity" of the art form, let's move on and acknowledge that both are here to stay, learn the new tools, apply them to our craft and create some amazing photographic art. I realize that if we all made this simple concession there would far fewer posts and articles bombarding us on the Internet. But, we'll survive.
Categories: From the Editor
Post a Comment
- Oops, you forgot something.
8 Comments
And love the sarcasm at the end!
"Today, these often historically tedious artistic and technical alterations are performed on the computer using programs like Photoshop. "
Historically "tedious"?! Spoken like a true SLACKER!
"Except as a brief educational experience to gain an understanding of the roots of photography, would any photographer today want his/her child to entertain the notion of making a full-time career amidst the fumes of a developer, stop bath, bleach, fixer atmosphere in a traditional chemical darkroom? It's doubtful."
Are you kidding me?! The health risks from working in front of the computer are quite numerous. The fumes which arise from the electronic machinery are harmful in the extreme, the ecological problems from the disposal of outdated equipment is a major problem, not to mention carpal tunnel syndrome, and don't expect to keep your perfect eyesight for too long after staring at the monitor all day. That and the fact that the actions carried out on the computer are done from a seated position. Not much excercise going on there, so you can also expect to gain a ton of flab, along with other complications which arise from a sedentary lifestyle, especially in middle age.
"More importantly, the digital environment has freed photographers and technicians from the drudgery, the cost and the less-than-healthy conditions of the chemical-laden darkroom."
"The drudgery" ?!! (slacker mentality again).
"The cost"!!!??? Doesn't anyone recognize the harm to one's financial health in purchasing and constantly upgrading electronic equipment, or is everyone just in the thrall of parting with their hard earned cash? I realize that photography has always been the pursuit of the more affluent class, but the (constantly rising) cost of computer hardware and software has made it beyond the reach of the average person, especially to the younger student.
So yes, can't we just get beyond the "Photoshop thing"?
Michael -- you do raise legitimate points above, but there are ways to mitigate the last ones. For example, I've used standing stations for different computers. I also change from sitting on a chair to sitting on an excerise ball; in fact, I'm doing it now. Changes the body position and the micro-muscle movements a lot. (plus you can bounce on it, which is cool) In my regular chair, I often to "presses" with my arms. And I'm always getting up and down to deal with printing or watching a storm roll in through my windows.. Plus I'm running up and down the stairs constantly to get to and from my home office during my business day. Plus going outside to stretch and run in the woods and clear my head. So for me, it's not sedentary at all. And I'm at my ideal weight (BMI 22) at middle age+ . And it beats the hell out of working in a wet darkroom, which I did and vowed to never do again.
So there is no correlation between Flab and Photoshop with this photographer. Your mileage may vary.
Haraldo
Now, not so long ago, the fear of digital was that film and darkroom suppliers would disappeared. Kodachrome being the latest. But that wasn't the fault of digital but simple supply and demand and the market. Kodachrome just couldn't compete against the cheaper E-6 films and processing. Today, only one lab in the Nation will process the film and that lab has enough chemicals until 2011 or so. According to a business magazine I read.
I'm in the process of organizing a Alternative process photography event in September and one of the things I want is a discussion of why the resurgence of all these older processes? I think its a reaction to digital and photoshop. I also think it was a growth of years upon years of following standards by photographers like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.
Many photographers I know are either in one camp or another and a few see things as I see it. Photoshop is just another tool for expression. Like it or not, it here to stay until something else comes.
To me the problem is that the enthusiasm which the digital revolution has sparked has some people blinded to it's inherent drawbacks. I noticed noone chose to address the problem of cost for switching to digital. Recently, a good friend of mine, who happens to be a top salesperson for a very large photographic equipment store (who will remain nameless), tried to get me to consider the switch to digital. I asked him just how much this switch would COST. He knows what I do in photography and I asked just what it would take to create the same prints which I make in my darkroom, but do it digitally. I never got a direct answer. The point is that I am perfectly happy with the method which I have used lo these many years, so why switch? (By the way this was the same person who showed me how to make platinum/palladium prints, so go figure).
I get soooo tired of being told that darkroom work is some form of drudgery, and compare the darkroom to the dungeon. My darkroom is cool and quiet in the summer, and warm and cozy in the winter. It is my sanctuary from the distractions which occur during the day, and as such it is an excellent environment for creative work. It is a TRUE darkroom, not a "wet" darkroom, the plumbing is in good shape. Why do digitographers insist on using the term "darkroom" for the space in which they work. Come on you guys, you don't work in any sort of darkroom whatsoever. You work in an office, at least that is where my computer is set up. Or, God forbid, you might be working for a corporation in some sort of (dare I say it?) CUBICLE! These are not necessarily the prime environments for doing creative work.
As far as I am concerned. it all comes down to selling and marketing high end electronic equipment which noone really needs, at least not ME. It is all, in a word, hype.
There are costs associated to most if not all forms of expressions. In my years, I have ran into many folks who like to photograph but don't want to do the darkroom work, Which I find fun and rewarding as well. Because Darkroom work to some is a mystery and has to do with chemicals. What photoshop and digital photography has done is open the playing field a bit.
"I get soooo tired of being told that darkroom work is some form of drudgery, and compare the darkroom to the dungeon. My darkroom is cool and quiet in the summer, and warm and cozy in the winter. It is my sanctuary from the distractions which occur during the day, and as such it is an excellent environment for creative work. It is a TRUE darkroom, not a "wet" darkroom, the plumbing is in good shape. Why do digitographers insist on using the term "darkroom" for the space in which they work. Come on you guys, you don't work in any sort of darkroom whatsoever. You work in an office, at least that is where my computer is set up. Or, God forbid, you might be working for a corporation in some sort of (dare I say it?) CUBICLE! These are not necessarily the prime environments for doing creative work."
There are far more computers in homes then Darkrooms. Digital photography simply addresses that. It's great to have a darkroom. I have a wet darkroom and a computer for my digital work. I find that I'm open to both ways for expression. I can play with my film cameras and digital and get the results I enjoy.
I do envy you for having quite time to work in your darkroom. It seems when I close my door one or both of my kids are crashing or destroying something in the house and I'm needed to fix, repair, mend, or offer judgement over. If I had a print in a developer, its gone. But in a computer I'm open to do what a father is needed to do and come back when the crisis is averted.
"As far as I am concerned. it all comes down to selling and marketing high end electronic equipment which noone really needs, at least not ME. It is all, in a word, hype."
[/Michael Stathatos]
It's all up to the individual. If he or she wishes to do wet or digital photography and is happy to do so. Then go for it! We should not judge others unless we wish to be judged.
COSTS: Yes, it's expensive to switch over. But that's true for everything. Happened when contact-printing with glass plates switched to enlarger-based printing on paper, new film cameras, etc. The digital range could be from $5K to $50K. Or more. All depends.
DARKROOM: To each his own. I didn't like it, but Michael obviously does. Sounds like he's got a good system. On the name thing, I just say "wet darkroom" out of habit. There's plumbing, there are liquids, hence it's wet. Some "digitographers" (cool word!) call their spaces "digital darkrooms" but they're really "lightrooms" or just "rooms." Mine is a home office with lots of windows that I can close up with mini-blinds. Definitely not a cubicle! ;-) It's very efficient and practical for me. ***HEY TOM: remember that "Show us your workspace" thread from somewhere? Maybe time to start it up again?
HYPE: Michael writes: "As far as I am concerned. it all comes down to selling and marketing high end electronic equipment which noone really needs, at least not ME. It is all, in a word, hype." Now hold on a second. It takes two to tango. Marketers and salespeople can push there wares all they want, but if people don't want to buy them, they don't have to. Works in all industries. I happen to drive a 22-year-old Ford Aerostar van. (My wife drives a new Toyota Camry). That van is so old it's got algae growing on it (really; I never clean it). And I'm bombarded by all the Ford TV commercials, direct-mail pieces, and even cute litte birthday cards from the dealer every year. So the hype is there (I mean that's their JOB, afterall), but I have not been swayed since I made my last car payment in, what was it: 1992!
EASE & FLEXIBILITY: Here's another example of why Digital works for ME... I decided to take some pix and shoot some video at my local swimming pool yesterday. A personal project. I took my little Olympus 770 SW digicam (7.1 MP). It measures a whopping 3.5x2.25x.75 inches. Fits in the palm of my hand. I just throw it in my shirt pocket. Shoots both stills and video. Or, I could have taken my Nikonos II 35mm (if I could find it) and my separate video camera, both high-quality gear for what they do. But then I couldn't have done what I set out to do: Shoot pix and video both in and underwater, come home, download the files, select the good ones, do some quick tweaking (yes, in Photoshop), and send off the stills in a hurry. But here's the cool part: I also wanted to make a quick iMovie and share with a freediviing discussion group I'm on and a couple of business colleagues. So I grabbed the video files from the same digital camera, made my 1-minute movie complete with titles and a soundtrack, and then uploaded it to YouTube and shared it with everyone that same day. That's the world I live in now. And Digital is the only way to do it.
Like Robert says: It's all up to the individual. And for me, it works.
H
As an aside, I notice how film artists who've made the transition to digital still approach solutions to image making challenges in ways they used to in the old analog world. Artists who never trained in chemical film/print processes seem to come at image making in rather unique ways.
Either way, it seems to me that the final print is everything. If the process helps you "get there", then by all means, choose that process.
Maybe I should come up with a new phrase. Something like "Show me the print!" That might go along well with my other pet phrases, like "A tripod is the sharpest lens I own", and "Cameras have no talent. It's what's behind the eyepiece that counts."
Categories
Upcoming Photographic Events
Please Patronize Our Sponsors
(and the home of some real nice folks!)
Be All The Photographer You Can Be
Hand-Made In Oregon By Real Humans
HP Photo Processing Specials
Affordable Online Back Up for Invaluable Files
As Seen On TV
Bring New Life To Your Family Memories
Maker of Professional-Worthy Bags & Backpacks
A Simple Way To Back Up Your Valuable Files
Hub's Beginning DSLR Classes
MagCloud: Monthly PMPN Photo Contest Sponsor
Looking for Something in PMPN? Search Here.
Buy All Your Photographic Books at Powell's Books - A Portland Institution
Santa Fe Photographic Workshops
Hub's Free Educational Blogs for Beginning Digital Imagers
Hub's Camera
For those just getting started with the DSLR camera
Hub's iDarkroom
For those just starting in the digital imaging darkroom
Hub's Photography Tips
All those miscellaneous tips that make photography easier
Hub's Visionary Photographers
See the works and hear the words of today's prestigious photographers
Hub's Rising Stars of Photography
A public stage for the works and careers of today's emerging photographers
Looking for PMPN Advertising Information?
CLICK HERE to download Portland Metro Photographic News advertising details. Join our family of advertisers, spotlight your company and reap the rewards.
We DO NOT Spam Our Readers! JOIN TODAY!
NO SPAM from PMPN. We will only send email information to you if you agree to become a member of the PMPN family. It takes less than a minute. It's free. And it ensures that you will receive information that is important to you.
CLICK HERE to become a PMPN member!
