How Do We Really Make Photographs? Let's tell the truth!

Rachel, who is a recent and enthusiastic new member, posted on her attempts at portraits. Immediately the role of "Photoshopping" came in. So, are we just rescuing poorly taken pictures? What's the legitmate role of post light-capture and extraction of an image from that RAW file? This lively discussion is continued here!

This thread is under Nicolas' name. However, since this thread reflects my penchant for dividing up threads that have important O.T. discussions, give Nicolas credit and me blame!

Asher


Rachel,

Don't get fooled by the pseudo easyness that Photoshop can bring to a photo.

Yes PS can do miracles, but images always look much more real when they're made in camera…
I mean:
choice of lens
choice of angle
treatment of light
focus
Framing
DOF
waiting for the right moment to fire…

Photography is a matter of wait:

wait of the light
wait of the subject
in the meantime, get technically ready according to the final result you wish…

This is true for every kind of photography, the only difference is the amount of time you're allowed to wait!

The photography is made in camera. The work after is illustration (for the creative part of it) and post-production to repair such things like damage on skin or pre-press for printing.

Believe me, I do spend to much time in front of my computer everyday;-)

I know a lot here who won't agree with me (Asher for example) but that's the way I see my job…

Nicolas Claris said:

Rachel
don't get fooled by the pseudo easiness that Photoshop can bring to a photo.

Yes PS can do miracles, but images always look much more real when they're made in camera…
I mean:
choice of lens
choice of angle
treatment of light
focus
Framing
DOF
waiting for the right moment to fire…

Photography is a matter of wait:
wait of the light
wait of the subject
in the meantime, get technically ready according to the final result you wish…

This is true for every kind of photography, the only difference is the amount of time you're allowed to wait!

Click to expand...

Well Nicolas,

Of course you know my instincts and different way of thinking. Let's divide images you want into two classes,

1. Those that you already have decided on completely
   
2. Those still open to work.

When I am making a picture of a planned scene I have in mind, I have already spent a lot of time sketching the scene, photographing the models and furniture beforehand and only then does the work start. Still there are nuances (which the camera cannot know about) and will be explored de novo in the universe of my computer screen.

Other times I'm shooting from the hip, literally or aiming the camera approximately, without the viewfinder as a guide and even shooting while walking! Yes, this is horrific to admit, but something I must confess to since you have seen it anyway!

Generally though, I hunt a scene, approach from a carefully selected angle and take advantage of the light as best can be matched to my impulsive nature.

Often I'll merely scout with no camera to return with tripod, when the light is perfect.

Asher

Nicolas Claris said:

The photography is made in camera.

Click to expand...

Nicolas, this must be an error of the moment!

Photography is made in the camera? This is not true!

Surely photography is made in the mind. It's a continuous iterative arc of work. The brain sees the subject, assessing factors you mention (and others from your own personal view of life) and then, in an instant, the camera is allowed to record some of that moment.

There is no way that the image recorded can match exactly what the brain might be most satisfied with,

However, there are two different types of people:

1. Those who are conservative and tend to protect everything, "as they are" as if "some reality" or "set of rules" must not be interfered with.
   
   
2. Those who tend to be "Liberal" and much more open to change and new ideas and have a loose allegiance to what is going on and the expectations, laws and rules around them.

I claim no authorship of the idea that the photograph is not made in the camera. Ansel Adams had this view long ago! Still he was probably in the more conservative group. So are you, I'd guess!

There's a spectrum from photographic documentation or records (for science and forensic work, for example), attractive catalog images to "painting with light" in expressive art.

Clearly "conservative" minds will demand more of themselves and how they use the camera to work within boundries of the lens, format and so forth.

Others will do even more work in the darkroom or on a computer screen.

Some of Adam's work took days, weeks months or even years to print and reprint as the image interviewed him and made him rethink his wants and needs and inspirations.

My own view stands that images are made in one's mind. You, Nicolas, by nature, focus your your efforts on what discipline, skill, insight and esthetics can extract from a scene at the moment of recording the light

Nicolas Claris said:

I know a lot here who won't agree with me (Asher for example) but that's the way I see my job…

Click to expand...

The disagreement is merely the spectral distribution of effort based on personality. One has to find one's own way of expression!

Asher

To save the responses, we all agree that creativity is not a substitute for incompetence nor does technical perfection make up for lack of soul!

What a thought-provoking exchange! Thank you both. These are things I've never thought of and quite clearly one needs to be aware of the assumptions one brings to the work. (Work? Play! Photography may take effort, skill, and learning but it is a joy!)

I agree that a photo is made in the mind. Well said, I think. However, I think it's a bit Platonic (Plato said there are "ideals" in the mind which are never quite as good in the "real world" -- real world being my words, not his). So, we have an ideal photograph and we do our best to make it happen. It will never be as good as the ideal, though, so that's where photoshop comes in.

Would it be fair to say you don't disagree (envision the best photograph you can, do as much to make it happen as possible, and then touch it up with PS), but it's only the emphasis that is different?

When Nicolas said a 'Photograph is made in the camera' as opposed to post process, didnt he mean it literally? I mean yes an image is made in your mind before you use the tool to portray the message for you ie: the camera, but technically the image is made in the camera, and if the image is good to begin with, lens choice, aperture, exposure, then the less attention you will need post processing. This is how I understood Nicolas's post, in a very literal sense.

Annie

You're fully right Annie!
For me the camera is the technical medium between my mind and intend and the result.
Of course I do some post process, at least because I shoot always raw, and that digital files always need some sharpening.
But the less I have to recompose (frame), to change lights and colors, the more I'm happy, maybe because I'm lazy!-)
Literally, at the moment I press the shutter, I know what will be the use of the image.
Top on 80% of time.

To come back to the understanding/misunderstanding of my phrase "Photograph is made in the camera" it can be put of my English which is as you may easily check when reading me, not my mother tongue… but it gave Asher a good occasion to developp his vision, which is right too, as he said "The disagreement is merely the spectral distribution of effort based on personality. One has to find one's own way of expression!" and, BTW to be classified as binge in the same group as Ansel Adams, well not that bad after all!

So, to make a picture that is worthy of pride and or passion, what is your process, work and creativity distribution. IOW, do you do the work in your head first frame it, release the shutter and sort of, voila?

Asher

Hey, dude, don't blame this on me!

Actually, how many times have you taken a picture you thought was great, you chimped it and it looked good but when you looked at it on screen it wasn't? Or vice versa? How many times did you take a photograph and think that it was going to the outtakes folder or recycle bin? And once processed you found a tweek that made it PERFECT?

Like Rachel's bird, I did one that was just okay - wishing I'd taken it with a longer lens so I cropped it - that was the ONLY PS work I did on it. Then I printed it and thought it was special enough that I entered it in a contest.

Sometimes I find I have to sit on it a while and look again later for better perspective.
Also, being originally a film shooter, I learned there were no do-overs. Get in right in camera. I resisted Photoshop and any software tweeks until just this last year when I started using DPP and Canon's ZoombrowserEX. I was shooting jpg until last fall. I am currently shooting jpg and Raw but getting close to giving up on the jpg at all now. Almost just file them as extra backups.

So that's my take on the whole thing.

Huh...! I just printed something that looked mediocre on the screen and was better printed.

As usual, it depends!

In the studio, I know exactly what I want to see in the finished frame, and work with lighting, exposure, etc. to capture exactly that. The mandolin series is an example of that.

On location for landscape photography, the first time I visit a location, I often just "shoot stuff that looks interesting" and see if there's a picture in it later. If I return to a location, I often have a specific picture in mind. The "Painted Hills" pictures are examples of that. The first visit produced no keepers, subsequent visits produced many keepers.

Sometimes, I'll see something and instantly will see the picture it should become. "Ripple in Still Water" and the two Reflection pictures previously discussed here are good examples of that experience.

Seldom do the pictures shot just because it looked interesting turn into keepers, because they are too often not well executed enough (bad focus, bad framing, etc.).

I generally know at the moment when I push the shutter release whether or not it's going to be a "keeper"

Chas, your reflection photos inspired me to shoot a pic yesterday that I am considering carefully. It may be one of my best. Jury is out, though. Interesting thing is that I didn't "see" what the camera saw. I've been working on trying to know what the camera will do when I push the trigger.

Charles L Webster edited!

"As usual, it depends!

In the studio, I know exactly what I want to see in the finished frame, and work with lighting, exposure, etc. to capture exactly that. The mandolin series is an example of that.

On location for landscape photography, the first time I visit a location, I often just "shoot stuff that looks interesting" and see if there's a picture in it later.: usually no keepers! you say
If I return to a location, I often have a specific picture in mind. The "Painted Hills" pictures are examples of that. The first visit produced no keepers, subsequent visits produced many keepers.

Sometimes, I'll see something and instantly will see the picture it should become. "Ripple in Still Water" and the two Reflection pictures previously discussed here are good examples of that experience. I generally know at the moment when I push the shutter release whether or not it's going to be a "keeper"

Seldom do the pictures shot just because it looked interesting turn into keepers, because they are too often not well executed enough (bad focus, bad framing, etc.)."


This is a good response and helpful to me. Now where do you now do work(ie the timeline)? Creative work, that is. Do you just extract the image from RAW or is there now substantial creative work without which the idea would be hidden?

Asher

Kathy Rappaport said:

..........Sometimes I find I have to sit on it a while and look again later for better perspective.

Click to expand...

That admission, Kathy is revealing. It means that the image was in your brain, interviewing all your previous experience. Then when you looked at it later, the picture has new possibilities worked out in your dreams or right now as you try new ideas or patterns for satisfaction and thrills.

Is that whart's happning? Is the work of the pictures creation done subconsiously or just that you can pay attention to it with a fresh look.

In any case, this picture was certainly not made in the camera! That's what I mean by "Where is the work done?

Charles seems to say thay he hardly if ever gets keeps from things that just hapnned to be of interest.

What about this picture by Annie, she felt, at least at first, reluctant to revisit her spontanious impulsive idea to photograph what she saw in the mirror. Thread here . This so different from Charles following up interesting snaps of landscapes! So why should this "return to purposely reshoot the inititial subject" constitute the photography. IOW, when has the photography work started and what happens in between the impulsive snap and the final image take?

To me, the process of photography is itterative in stages and not dependant so much on that snap of the shutter. It's rather what happens way before and afterwards that makes the picture.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Charles L Webster edited!

"As usual, it depends!

-snip-

This is a good response and helpful to me. Now where do you now do work(ie the timeline)? Creative work, that is. Do you just extract the image from RAW or is there now substantial creative work without which the idea would be hidden?

Asher

Click to expand...

If I saw the picture in the camera, I seldom do additional work. Perhaps minor cropping to remove an unnoticed branch or such, and I do adjust levels etc. when I convert from RAW, and I do sharpen separately for web and print, but the picture I saw in the viewfinder is the picture that comes out of the printer/browser.

I also sometimes remove wires, fence posts, or similar minor imperfections that don't allow me to capture what I visualize.

But I don't go "mine" a photo trying to "make" a picture from it that wasn't there at the moment of exposure. Nor will I go to "extraordinary lengths" to resurrect a failed picture. I can't make silk purses from sow's ears, even with digital magic ;-) And I shoot lots of sow's ears.

Charles L Webster said:

If I saw the picture in the camera, I seldom do additional work. Perhaps minor cropping to remove an unnoticed branch or such, and I do adjust levels etc. when I convert from RAW, and I do sharpen separately for web and print, but the picture I saw in the viewfinder is the picture that comes out of the printer/browser.

I also sometimes remove wires, fence posts, or similar minor imperfections that don't allow me to capture what I visualize.

Click to expand...

This part I understand and this is where Nicolas Claris and many other fine photographers would have perfect comfort with your truthful apporach!

Charles L Webster said:

But I don't go "mine" a photo trying to "make" a picture from it that wasn't there at the moment of exposure.

Click to expand...

At the time of exposure, nothing is there, no mood, no values, no feeling, just the reflections that happen to arrive at the silicon! If you lit and composed the subject yourself then it could well be almost perfect! If it's anything natural, that's unlikly that the silicon can see as you do with your mind's eye. You did not create the landscape and it's too complex to have some neutral stance.

So where does the color and impact come from? It comes from how the RAW converting software EXTRACTS an image from the file! Each software algorithm has different feelings and mood stimulated So, according to which RAW software you use, for example SilkyPix versus Lightroom or Ligh Zone the image will come out totally differently! So it's not really honest to say you use the image as you shoot it, since that would vary with the software!!!

Charles L Webster said:

Nor will I go to "extraordinary lengths" to resurrect a failed picture. I can't make silk purses from sow's ears, even with digital magic ;-) And I shoot lots of sow's ears.

Click to expand...

I understand that you don't get stimulated to make images from pictures that don't turn out the way you expect. So the metaphor of "Silk purse form sows ears" does apply for your work. No argument.

However, for me at least, I see everything as an opportunity!

I'll be sharing some examples in the near future!

Asher

This discussion takes me back decades. Friends were shooting Kodak Instamatics and the such, and getting prints that "popped" back from the corner drug store. And me with my top of the line film SLR, not doing my own colour printing, seldom satisfied by the results of even a pro lab. Dull, lifeless, boring, no energy to go back and request changes (did I even realise I could have done that??)

This has all changed so much. A few years ago, first DSLR in hand, the flat, dull, lifeless results made me think "here I go again". Fast forward a couple of years to some basic PS skills, I can finally achieve "pop". And no waiting.

Debate about getting shot right in first place vs post-processing? My stance is we need both, and while it's ok to be satisfied, make sure our expectations do not become stagnant......in either case.

-Greg

I Photoshop most of my pictures, and sometimes others too!
I have a general idea of what I want the image to look like, as I explained in my shot of a Thai long boat, the light, weather, time restrictions, and an infinite variety of circumstances, don´t always work with you, in most cases the aim can only be achieved through complex PP, or revisiting the site (not always a possibility).
For instance, my picture of a log in a forest; the original file looked bland, and although a revisit is on the cards, it was only after PP that my vision came to life (Re: pans labyrinth).
Or the wonderful picture of Paris roof tops taken by Michael Fontana, or Asher´s boy in a bicycle.
All of those images were in serious need of pp, in the case of the boy in a cycle, or my long tail boat, a revisit is unlikely.
The image (as Asher puts it), starts in the brain, the camera is the tool I use to record it, Photoshop, (when a reshot is not possible) is the tool I use to bring my vision to life.
To conclude, it matters little what tools are used. What´s important to me, is the final print.