from the camera, just resized
I have run into two photographers over the past two days who have expressed the opinion, one way or another, that the untouched digital file, just as it comes from the camera, is superior to the post-processed version of the same image. Not technically superior. Not superior in overall image quality or emotional impact. That has not entered the discussion.
They are implying that the untouched image is superior in what amounts to a moral or ethical sense…perhaps an aesthetic sense as the word applies to the artist as opposed to his or her work…as though those who achieve their results totally in camera are practicing a higher art than those who stoop to post-processing.
To me that seems like telling Ansel Adams that his attention to darkroom work made him a lesser artist than someone who took only direct positives…or who, maybe, contact printed all negatives. It is like holding up slide film as the higher art because all manipulation had to be done in camera, forgetting that most slides taken by professionals ended up printed, very often on an offset press as part of a magazine…and the original photographer often hand little control over the printing process. When he or she had any control at all, it was at best a collaboration with another professional (the printer) that produced the final image we saw. And if that isn’t post-processing I don’t know what is.
The fact is, every medium has it limitations. No image capturing system yet developed captures the world in all its glory. And, of course, no medium can accurately capture what you see in the world, at least not consistently, without active intervention…intervention which requires a high degree of skill on your part.
Digital is no different. The physics of how the image is recorded and stored effect the outcome. If you shoot jpeg then the mathematics of the camera’s internal software routines has a great deal to do with how the image looks. Even if you shoot raw, you still have to process the data down to a format that can be displayed or printed using a limited range of tones and a limited color pallet. It is all a compromise: An attempt to compress the full glory of creation down into a form that can be stored and reproduced. Something is always lost in translation.
One of the things, in my opinion, that has always separated the true photographic artist from the snapshot shooter is that the artist understands the limitations of the medium, and works within those limitations, often, in fact, making creative use of those limitations, to produce satisfying images…images with emotional impact, aesthetic appeal, and true artistic integrity.
Digital has a known set of limitations. They can not all be compensated for in the camera. And they certainly can not all be creatively manipulated by the artist in the camera.
To me, the range of possibilities available in today’s image processing programs are as much a part of the digital imaging process as the camera itself. The software is part of the medium. Without it, we are just shooting negatives and making contact prints.
When I take an image with the camera, I already know, for the most part, how I am going to process it. I don’t save bad images, or correct in camera mistakes, by post-processing. The available post-processing techniques are part of my image capture while I am still looking at the image in the viewfinder…part of the decision making process involving exposure values, light balance, color balance, focus point, framing, etc. etc. that happen before I click the shutter button. When I get the digital negative on my computer, I continue the process of creating the image…of bringing out what I saw…of recreating the emotional impact, the aesthetic appeal, and the artistic integrity that I envisioned when I looked through the viewfinder…or even when I was simply confronted with the scene.
Of course, there are always surprises when post-processing. Sometimes you see a new possibility that you had not seen until you looked at the image on your computer screen. Sometimes a new tool comes along that completely revolutionizes what is possible, and therefore makes you look at every image you have ever created and wonder if you could do better now. But that too, that spontaneous discovery of new possibilities, and often of new tools, is part of the process of creating art, of being an artist.
Post-processing, as far as I am concerned, is part of the digital art. It makes no sense to me to deny it’s place in the process. I want to create images with emotional impact, aesthetic appeal, and artistic integrity. I will use whatever tools I can find. In the end, I would like to be known as an artist (: of vision, and as one who knows how to use every tool available to create his art (:.
Take a look at the image at the top of the column. Not a bad image, but not what I saw. The limitations of the recording medium, even doing my best with the camera, mute the emotional impact and dull the aesthetic appeal of the scene I saw with my heart, mind, and eye.
But I knew when I pressed the shutter release that I could take the file into Lightroom and produce the image below. This is what I saw when I pressed the shutter release, with heart and mind and eye. The post-processing is an aesthetic choice…it is part of the art 
.
employing the post-processing possibilities
I agree with you Steve. But I think that most of these ‘in the camera’ people are what I call Photo Hippies, they know nothing about the history of photography.
Photographers spent a lot of time in the darkroom, dodging, burning and masking negatives. Most serious photographers had a darkroom (but not all, Cartier-Bresson wanted nothing to do with processing prints for example). I did, I had tanks, enlargers and various other equipment.
But that only lasted for the first 150 years or so of photography, once we got to the mid 1970′s new color processes were taking over the photo world. And these processes required chemicals and equipment in the darkroom that were just out of the reach of most photographers.
So from, say, 1975 to 2000 photographers were ejected from the darkroom and had to make sure it was just right in the camera. People who grew into photography during that period had no idea of what darkroom work was, they did their shots and sent the film off which came back in a week or so as prints, like magic they thought. They had no contact with the printers in most cases. There were custom labs where the photographer could at least make requests of the printers but these were very pricey.
Thus the generation of photo hippies was created, they had little contact with the technical end of print making and think that once they clicked that shutter button their work was done.
Now digital comes on the scene, inkjets become available and make good prints and all of a sudden, Photoshop is invented and photographers have complete control once again like they did for the first 150 years of photography.
The photo hippies are upset since in a strange twist they think that they are traditionalists. This actually has practical affects on digital photographers since these hippies are doing their best to block access to contests and local art shows for digital photographers. Based on their foolish interpretation of photo history and their aversion to competition.
I don’t disagree with your point of view but am kind of wondering why in your example of before and after processing the original is such a poorly focused shot.
It has the unintended effect of supporting the views of the anti processing crowd who feel people don’t work hard enough to get a good shot in the first place. My two bits anyhow
Just as a brush and canvas are tools of the painter, the camera is the tool of the photographer. It is a means to an end that only the photographer can know. The camera is the tool the photographer uses to begin his vision. What comes next amounts to a painters decision to use a pallet knife or a brush, oil or watercolor, impressionist or realist style or whatever. No one can say what is pure or impure. Just the simple act of changing the exposure settings of the camera is changing the purity of the image if you want to get technical.
A camera in the hands of an artist is the beginning of something much more than a mere snapshot. It can be the beginning of an imaginary journey to somewhere previously unknown.
Nice article Steve. Pretty much agrees with my perspective on the role of post-processing. Knowledge of basic photographic principles, knowing how to use your camera, and post-processing skills are all part of the image-making process, at least for the artistic -oriented image-maker.
Michael,
I would argue that the in camera shot is not poorly focused. It is the best that the camera (and I) could do under the circumstances, and it is the “correct” focus to create the image at the end of column. If I had been planning on displaying the in camera image, I might have shot it differently, but even then, the haze between me and the castle would have made for a difficult shot. Just my two cents.
From Don Cone via digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
Steve, I think BKs perspective on this reflects my own. Those who have done post processing wet and dry for a lot of years know that an in camera image is at a severe disadvantage. It simply cannot record the world as the eye can see it. That is reality and it is why photographers who are serious about their art have spent a lot of time in post processing. Digital cameras now offer dynamic range in excess of that available to film shooters but more is needed to truly represent the dynamic range of the human eye. I routinely address that
issue with multiple exposures and some day I will have the capability to do it in camera. When that happens, I will be more enthusiastic about in camera processing and spend less time in front of a computer screen.
Don
From Kris Kakita via digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
don
of course the digital image is going to be a better source than that of film, but it’s the evolution of photography.
now i’m limiting this to those of use that have done a wet darkroom with film and translated all that we’ve learned to digital…so to some digital technicals that got into the computer aspect that work in those limitation, as i understand stephen’s posting with the image. here the mindset in individual..as a ‘before thought, or and ‘after thought’. those of us that shot film used the best quality film available (this isn’t kodak gold 100) but some of the finer film in quality and manufacturer…i preferred Fuji for the skin tones..since i shoot mostly people..as an example. then take it up another notch to the photographers that shot slide film. the limitation of the range of error is less than negative film. so i think that those that used mostly slide film were able to capture that ‘dynamic range’ with a more precise exposure than those that shot negative film. which they ‘carried over’ to digital. so that would be the one’s that would be ‘it
is, what it is’…type of shooter.
but where i think that the limitations of the photography aspect is with the photographer to capture that ‘dynamic range’ in their camera…to most it done with whatever camera/lense that they have or can afford, which may or may not be the best image, but can be improved in post processing.
also take into account the mindset of the photographer, be it professional or amateur…this is a difference. for the amateur, they can shoot whatever and work with it in post, taking their time in the processing. while the professional getting it right in the camera, paying attention to those minute details before tripping the shutter, means less time in post processing…usually with the better equipment, because the mindset of a professional is ‘time is money’ and the least amount of time spent on the image means more money to turn it around and get paid.
so with this reasoning, the ethic would be the slide shooter jumping into digital..the aesthetics the amatuer, and the ethic/aesthetic would be the professional.
whether it’s digital or film, post processing is the necessary process to produce the image…but as with the camera, computer and post processing programs are just tools in the hands of the photographer. it is up to the photographer to become the master of his tools this also attributes to the knowledge and experience of each photographer to make the difference in the level of the photographer to produce the image…and afterall, that’s the ‘test’, the final image.
thanks for the insightful discussion…the theories behind photography is an intangible with no limitations, only to the individual photographer.
good luck
two k
From steve_sparkes via digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
Kris:
The thing I miss most about film is therandomness of it. However
careful and precise you were the universe could intervene and give you a result that you weren’t expecting. Digital seems too controlled. The fortuitous accident seems very rare in the world of 1s and 0s. I guess it’s a product of our internal life whether we prefer to produce an
image or to discover one
steve
From elec164 via digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
It was a good interesting article but I feel it will do little to sway those entrenched in the opposing viewpoint.
But there is one aspect that I thought was misleading or possibly incorrect and that was your comments about slide film. Its not that
the manipulation need to be done before hand, because when it came to exposure there was little latitude (about half stop) available when shooting slide film. Either you got it correct or you did not. As long
as the film type matched the color temperature of the light source the
slide captures the colors you saw unlike color negative film, which needs to be color corrected when printing. And the processing lab has little affect on image results when working with slides. Also slides are very demanding when scanning and only are captured well using more high-end scanners. Also they are considered by some to be superior to negative film because they have more contrast, better color depth, finer grain and better density range then negative film.
At least that is my opinion on this.
Responding to Kris Kakita and elec164 on digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
I agree completely that slide film kept us on our toes. Not that we didn’t attempt to do darkroom with it. I hand processed a lot of ektachrome using non-standard temperatures and times to stretch the dynamic range. Kodachrome was the killer. No latitude. Fuji was pretty stable…I could send that out for processing.
But…this is not quite to the point. The fact is that even perfectly exposed slide film did not capture the full dynamic range of the scene either. We learned to live with what we could get. Maybe we even learned to love what we could get. Digital and post-processing does not capture the full dynamic range either…but it comes closer. Right now we are learning to live with it.
But there is more to this discussion than dynamic range and exposure. Dynamic range limitations are only one of the limitations of the photographic process, and only one of the factors addressed in thoughtful, creative post-processing. If we only ever see post-processing as “corrective” then we are not, in my humble opinion, seeing it’s full potential. Isn’t it a creative tool, that allows us to express our vision…not just to capture the world?
KRIS KAKITA wrote:
> the slide shooters that i’ve come across seem to have a better handle on the exposure and spend less time in post processing because of their training in slide shooting. being a more precise procedure, and you’re right, either you get it or you don’t.
>
> because of that latitude of exposure, leaves little room for error (1/2 stop +/-) is less forgiving than negative film of 5 stops.
>
> so yeah, the more precise the exposure and attention to details means less time in post processing and what you see is what you get…lol
>
> two k
When I switched from film to digital, I was reluctant even to crop pictures. I’d spent too many years trying to get the best photo I could on the click. (Darkroom snobs can judge me, as they wish.)
I find digital photography liberating in so many ways. I prefer to spend my time *taking* pictures. If someone prefers tweaking, so be it. Let’s leave each other to our own way of enjoying the process.
peace,
mjh
Hi mjh,
I agree. To each his own.
But “darkroom snobs?” That hurts.
And, of course, I am not talking about tweaking…I am talking about post-processing as an integral part of the photographic process, something you see in your mind’s eye “on the click”…an extension of the capture process, and a necessary step to toward a displayed product. After all, the image captured “on the click” is never seen by anyone. It has to be processed to be displayed or printed. The question is, are you going to be in charge of that process, or are you going to let it be done “automatically” by some machine? Or that is how I see it anyway.
But still…to each his own.
Michael Shpuntov responding to Byran above via digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
Very well put Bryan. I agree with most of what you said here.
I basically belong to what you might call post-”hippy” generation
I’ve started with darkroom long time ago, then stopped for very long time, came back in 1990 for P&S color snapshots, and only seriously returned when the better digital cameras came around.
So basically I can say I’m a product of digital era in photography
Hence to me the processing in integral part of my photography. Depending on the image the post-processing might contribute probably up to 50% on how my final image will look like.
In my observations the amount of post-processing seriously depend on the quality of equipment. The extreme case for example the HDR or multiple exposures blending. These things came because of the
technical limitations of the current generation of digital cameras. They usually require most of the processing time at least for me.
Hence in the future when cameras will become more advanced I feel less and less post-processing will be required to compensate these limitations. So we might get partially back to what happened in 1970-2000, only we won’t have to send our “film” anywhere. Our lab will be our camera.
Of course, there will be always things required post-processing based on aesthetics of image. I guess when people say about “good” out of camera image this is what they mean. Better composition, more thinking of how to take the shot, etc…. This is very important and if failed for some reason while image was taken can and should be corrected (if possible) in post processing anyways. So post-processing won’t go away from our horizon.
Happy Shooting
Michael
http://www.pbase.com/michaelsv
Even at the earliest dawn of photography, creative image makers post-processed Daguerreotypes. It was, as you said, part of their art. There are only a tiny handful of famous photographers who will be long remembered and did not perform post-processing.
20 years before Photoshop even existed, I was doing that also. In those days I constructed a slide copier out of a Nikon tilt/shift bellows and a dichroic light source and bought 100 ft. rolls of Kodak duplicating film. Even today, I occasionally go back to images I made almost 40 years ago and create them anew. Fancifully but accurately speaking, if digital tools had been in existence in the time of Leonardo, he undoubtedly would have embraced them and left us an even greater legacy.
Signed: http://enochsvision.wordpress.com
From Wayne J. Cosshall via digital-photography@yahoogroups.com
Photography is all about creation and manipulation. From the choice
of depth of field to the contrast curve of the film we chose to the
manipulations of HDR and PS it is all the same, about producing an
image that works for the photographer. In camera and out of camera
manipulation is an arbitrary distinction. Photo hippies do not
understand photography, it is that simple. There is no such thing as
pure photography, or rather it all is.
Now there is a separate issue, and that is, for the individual
photographer, how much they want to try to do in camera and how much
they are happy to do out of camera, whether in the darkroom or
computer. An event photographer, for an example, may want as little
post processing as possible because of speed and the number of images
involved. A fine art photographer may prefer a straight in camera
capture just getting the exposure as right as possible (for quality
reasons) and then do it mostly in the darkroom or computer.
The point is there is no right or wrong way to do any of this, just
what works for you. The trouble starts when arrogant or stupid people
think there way of doing something is the RIGHT way and attempt to
force that on others. Pure stupidity and ego.
It is true that practice in the more restricted forms of photography,
such as shooting trannie, helps to train people to have more control
over and really just more awareness of things like exposure. But you
can also get this in other ways, if you want to.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker: http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog: http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
As the “time is money” adage applies to the topic at hand and this discussion..isn’t that what Lightroom is all about: Putting sophisticated editing and enhancement tools into the workflow in a way that will allow even the busiest pro to post-process quickly, easily, and often in bulk? My average time on task for an image at the edit stage is between 60 and 90 seconds. On shots that don’t require any highlight recovery I can sometimes process without even opening the develop module, with three menu selections. Only rarely do I “fuss over” an image.
I think that is part of the problem here…many people think that post-processing is an arduous tasks requiring arcane skills…it was in the early days of Photoshop and Gimp…but with today’s tools…Lightroom, LightZone, some of the photoshop plug-ins…it is not much harder than pressing the shutter button. It is mostly a matter of vision, and a few simple adjustments to achieve what you want to see…much like the process of capturing the image in camera in the first place.
Pingback: Learning to see… « Steve Ingraham’s Point and Shoot Landscape