preying
We went to a lecture last night from a well-known photographer. He takes some amazing pictures, but the colors are very extreme. Talking about one image, he said that he constantly gets in arguments with people who believe that it is photoshopped. He insists that it is not. He said, “All i do in photoshop is increase the saturation by 15 or so points and up the contrast.”
Gestern Abend sind wir zu einem Gespräch von einem bekannten Fotografer gegangen. Er macht einige erstaunliche Fotos, eber die Farben sind manchemal etwas extrem. Als er von einem Bild sprach, sagte er, dass Leute immer dabei sagen, es musste ‘photoshoppt’ sein. Er bestimmt es sei nicht. Er sagte, “Alles, was ich in Photoshop tue ist die Farbsättigung bei etwa 15 Punkten und den Kontrast erhöhern.”
“15 or so points,” i thought, “that is certainly not insignificant. Add upping the contrast to that and you could have quite a different image.”
“Etwa 15 Punkten,” dachte ich, “das ist ja nicht nichts. Und wenn man den Kontast dazu erhöhert, ist das schon etwas. Man könnte dadurch ein ganz anderes Bild daraus machen.”
This morning, we came across a Praying Mantis while walking to Alchemy for some coffee goodness. I got a few shots and then set out to see just how upping the saturation and contrast 15 or so points would do.
Heute Morgen, stoßen wir auf eine Gottesanbeterin als zu Alchemy wegen Kaffeeleckerei gingen. Ich habe ein Paar Fotos gemacht und dann machte ich daran zu sehen genau wie ein bißchen Farbsättigung and Kontrast sie ändern könnten.
First, here is the original image as pulled from my camera (resized for web):
Zuerst, das ursprüngliche Foto (Größe für’s Web angepasst):
One thing i often do, on digital as well as film based images, is burn the corners of an image to help keep the eye from straying off the edges. In photoshop, I do this by adding a solid color fill layer, masking the center of the layer, and changing blending type to multiply or overlay (or something else depending on the image).
Here is the original image with the burning, or vignetting:
Etwas, das ich öfters tue, ist die Ecken eines Bilds verdünkeln, um die Augen nicht wandern gehen lassen. Also, tat ich das hier auch:
Today I added an additional adjustment layer for hue/saturation and increased the saturation by 15 points. I applied the change globally, not to any individual channel:
Heute aber, habe ich auch ein ‘Hue/Saturation’ Äderungsschicht dazu gebracht und die Farbsättigung bei 15 Punkten gesteigert.
Subtile Veränderung, aber jetzt lass uns seinen nächsten Schritt nhemen und den Kontrast erhöhern:
Subtle change, with this image. But now lets take his other step, upping the contrast:
As you can see, this really focuses the eye on the mantis in this image. Although these colors do not truly represent the colors of the mantis as seen by my naked eye, the effect is definitely eye-catching. But can one really say it isn’t photoshopped?
Wie man merkt, jetzt wird das Auge stärker an die Gottesanbeterin gerichtet. Obwohl die Farben nicht so sind wie die mein blankes Auge gesehen hat, ist der Effekt ziemlich auffällig und attraktiv. Aber kann man wirklich sagen daß das Foto nicht ‘Photoshoppt’ wurde?
September 16th, 2007 at 05:50
I think the photographer shouldn’t say that he “only” photoshop’s a little, because there are definite differences between your original and the “little” changes he usually makes.
I personally don’t have a problem with photoshopped images, as long as the photographer doesn’t hide the fact that he/she has used it.
September 16th, 2007 at 18:53
Yeah, and Ansel Adams didn’t manipulate his images either. He just varied the individual intensities of the nine bulbs he used to expose the prints.
We all have our little stories.
One of mine is that I’m coming to hate what people are doing with Photoshop. But is it really so different from darkroom tricks?
September 17th, 2007 at 08:50
I think the thing that i find interesting, is that when asked directly, the photographer said that the image WAS NOT photoshopped. By this, he meant it had not been composited and apparently did not view the alteration of contrast and saturation as manipulation. These are all musings on my part, but i do wonder if the ease of manipulating things like contrast and saturation in photoshop makes people forget that these things still change the image.
K, you can correct me if i am wrong, but isn’t it quite difficult to adjust saturation and color balance in a color darkroom because of the shift in all colors?
Yes, Ansel manipulated many of his images drastically, the most well-known (at least to me) manipulation probably being Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico which, as i understand it, could not have been printed in its final form before multi-graded papers. With the amount of work he had to put into the image, however, i wonder if he would have replied that it has not been manipulated in any way.
There are many ways to manipulate a photographic image, from the speed at which you shoot, your f-stop and lens length to how you print the image. Many of these we wouldn’t even think of requesting that the photographer indicate manipulation, so what makes certain things different?
September 17th, 2007 at 10:29
Yes. In a standard color photo lab, color images can only print decently within a certain very narrow range of color and saturation, making color actually easier to print than B&W. Some manipulation is easy by choosing different contrast grades or brands of paper, and color can be manipulated in the enlarger head, but it does affect all colors and densities to some degree. I think there are highly specialized photographic processes that involve exposing the three colors separately, but I don’t have experience there.
I think the problem I have with photoshop, and to some extent, digital photography, is what it is not. One can pick the film type, alter the exposure with aperture and length of exposure, veer from recommended development times and chemicals, flash the film or the paper, manipulate the paper exposure, merge more than one element on film or paper, on and on, to somewhere near infinity. But at some point, there was an exposure, a moment that happened, where light was wed with film. Time is captured, I’ve read. Manipulating an image in photoshop breaks that chain of *physical* contact, making it to me a different art form.
Having worked as long as I did in custom photo labs and on the edges of the art world, I feel I can easily recognize what has been done to an image through the whole process and can say what is real and what is effect, and that most artists will readily explain what they have done to achieve a specific effect. I have run into photographers that have said they didn’t manipulate the image at all, only to find out *whatever*, and called them liars, even if under my breathe after they’ve turned away. It seems to be a matter of feelings of inadequacy.
And I thought Adams denied manipulating his images in any way? Oh, I remember. He said he didn’t do any burning or dodging, when in fact he did it all in that magic enlarger head. I know that whole cutting down of trees to get a perfect picture and then saying that he captured the image as it was annoyed the heck out of me.
And now, I’ll admit that I tweak contrast and brightness in my images pretty regularly, and get off my soapbox. But I’ve never cut down a tree, I swear.
September 20th, 2007 at 03:22
mhm. I am not a photographer, so maybe my 2 cents are really naive. The first thing that came to my mind was: Does it matter? Is photography supposed to image something as if it was seen with the naked eye? Is not photography to start with manipulating with wat is in front of the camera (by zooming, focussing, choosing an angle and whatnot you can do with a camera - or even by choosing a specific camera over an other)? Is there an objective reality out there anyway that is to be photographed or should we rather see photography as a creating art? Is it the process that counts or the product? And is it more skillful to be able to handle a camera than to handle photoshop?
September 20th, 2007 at 14:57
The point of this particular discussion is more one of honesty, than of “which means is better.” (Staying off my soapbox.) Most artists will tell you exactly what they’ve done to create an image (or, if they’re like me, throw their hands up in the air and go, “Just lucky, I guess”). This photographer, by not originally admitting he had used Photoshop to alter the image, was sort of pretending that he was something he wasn’t.
And I still (back on soap box here) insist that film and digital are two separate and distinct media, much as oil and watercolor are distinct.
September 20th, 2007 at 15:17
I think for documentary purposes, honesty has to be the ‘best’ policy. Even there, as Rineke points out, a photographer crops, zooms, uses a specific lens, camera, etc. We probably all remember the fiasco over a photographing compositing two images together to make it look like a marine was pointing his weapon at a child, but that’s obviously not what i meant to question.
Using photoshop is definitely a skill, but i think any photographer will tell you that your options in photoshop, or any imaging oftware application, increase if you are skilled with your photographic equipment as well. If you haven’t mastered exposure enough to get the data recorded, be it on film or a chip, you are going to be severely handicapped in your work.
I wonder more and more if it was the photographer hiding he made changes, or just that the ease of changing some things in photoshop compared to in the darkroom, make those changes trivial to him. I lean toward the latter. Just as dodging and burning and using contrast filters are part of the day-to-day in a darkroom, upping saturation (to colors that rarely exist in nature) is day-to-day for him. I do have to say that I tend to know what I have dodged, burned, etc in the darkroom and would mention that i had done so if someone had asked.
But does it matter? That i don’t know.