An apologia on the making of an acceptable photographic file.
One hears from lay people and even some photographers a disdain for image manipulation, particularly using modern programs such as Photoshop, and it's ilk.
I used to be one of the latter. I was all about the "in camera manipulation", ie, get the composition and exposure as close as possible to the desired result before pressing th
One hears from lay people and even some photographers a disdain for image manipulation, particularly using modern programs such as Photoshop, and it's ilk.
I used to be one of the latter. I was all about the "in camera manipulation", ie, get the composition and exposure as close as possible to the desired result before pressing th
e
shutter release, then print as-is. This may have been because I had
only a primitive darkroom, and depended on commercial labs for prints,
with all the attendant miscommunications about the final look. I have
since learned otherwise.
Since photography was discovered/invented the making of a visible print was the obvious goal. Early photographers had to go through great efforts with bulky equipment and hazardous chemicals to produce an acceptable product.
That is to say, from the beginning, there has been no way to make a print directly from the camera without doing some work on it, with the possible exception of the unique Polaroid Land Camera, with it's limitations on print size.
Even the choice a lens and film make a big difference in the final print, consider this "manipulation before printing".
More recent, pre-digital age photographers such as Ansel Adams spent countless hours in the darkroom tweaking the negative and the print to get just the effect they sought. You will never see a moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico in life like the famed Adams print.
Now, in the digital camera era, it is possible to get very close to an acceptable (acceptable to the fine-art photographer, that is, not the family picnic point-and-shooter) output. In-camera preparation now includes the type of file, ie RAW or TIF or JPEG; and many other controllable factors. With the LED viewing window, instant feedback shows which shot may be the best in a series. Automatic bracketing is available in most digital cameras.
Nevertheless, each photographer has a unique style, a look, that they go for. This still requires post-shutter-release image manipulation, even if relatively minor, compared to the 19th and 20th century needs.
As one who prefers to shoot landscapes: urban, suburban, rural, and wild, I have selected a digital camera (Pentax K110D) and wide lens (Vivitar 19mm f3.8) combination with a polarizing filter (Hoya rotating) for my basic "look". My photos, even before any other work, do not look exactly like the scene I shot. (As my bride says: "it did not look that good, I was there!")
My final work includes a little brightness/contrast adjustment, some small color saturation (not a color change unless there is an unwelcome "cast"), and a mild unsharp mask application, probably only because my eyes are approaching 68 years old. I also do a dust and speck removal. I rarely crop as I do the composition in-camera.
Compared to the early pioneers and the modern masters, and thanks to modern equipment, my manipulations are very minor. I don't even use the full program, I use Photoshop Elements 2.0 as it meets all my needs, is easier to use, and takes up less space in my computer.
Until they invent a camera that can do all this "in-camera", and I have no doubt they will some day, I will continue to work my files to attain my look.
Getting them past the computer, out of the printer, and up on the gallery wall is another bunch of stories....
Since photography was discovered/invented the making of a visible print was the obvious goal. Early photographers had to go through great efforts with bulky equipment and hazardous chemicals to produce an acceptable product.
That is to say, from the beginning, there has been no way to make a print directly from the camera without doing some work on it, with the possible exception of the unique Polaroid Land Camera, with it's limitations on print size.
Even the choice a lens and film make a big difference in the final print, consider this "manipulation before printing".
More recent, pre-digital age photographers such as Ansel Adams spent countless hours in the darkroom tweaking the negative and the print to get just the effect they sought. You will never see a moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico in life like the famed Adams print.
Now, in the digital camera era, it is possible to get very close to an acceptable (acceptable to the fine-art photographer, that is, not the family picnic point-and-shooter) output. In-camera preparation now includes the type of file, ie RAW or TIF or JPEG; and many other controllable factors. With the LED viewing window, instant feedback shows which shot may be the best in a series. Automatic bracketing is available in most digital cameras.
Nevertheless, each photographer has a unique style, a look, that they go for. This still requires post-shutter-release image manipulation, even if relatively minor, compared to the 19th and 20th century needs.
As one who prefers to shoot landscapes: urban, suburban, rural, and wild, I have selected a digital camera (Pentax K110D) and wide lens (Vivitar 19mm f3.8) combination with a polarizing filter (Hoya rotating) for my basic "look". My photos, even before any other work, do not look exactly like the scene I shot. (As my bride says: "it did not look that good, I was there!")
My final work includes a little brightness/contrast adjustment, some small color saturation (not a color change unless there is an unwelcome "cast"), and a mild unsharp mask application, probably only because my eyes are approaching 68 years old. I also do a dust and speck removal. I rarely crop as I do the composition in-camera.
Compared to the early pioneers and the modern masters, and thanks to modern equipment, my manipulations are very minor. I don't even use the full program, I use Photoshop Elements 2.0 as it meets all my needs, is easier to use, and takes up less space in my computer.
Until they invent a camera that can do all this "in-camera", and I have no doubt they will some day, I will continue to work my files to attain my look.
Getting them past the computer, out of the printer, and up on the gallery wall is another bunch of stories....
From my blog:http://hartzkastle.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-apologia-on-making-of-acceptable.html
ReplyDelete