The Digital Darkroom
It doesn’t happen as often any more but the word “Photoshop” used to elicit snickers and snide remarks about two headed dogs, alien encounters and sightings of bigfoot… all of which could be made up out of whole cloth as it were, using Photoshop. Computer Graphics, in general, is a field of art undergoing explosive growth, and we are all familiar with films like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, depicting a man aging backwards (!) Fascinating. But, the question is often asked (echoing the old Memorex commercial…) “Is it real or is it Photoshop?”
A lot has been written on the subject and people have even made a moral issue out of it… Is it ‘morally acceptable’ to use photoshop to enhance a photograph? To summarize the emerging consensus most people agree that creativity is indispensable in Photo-art but inapropriate in Photojournalism. I wouldn’t want a police photographer to Photoshop my face on a ten most wanted poster… for art’s sake (!?) But I would most certainly appreciate a Landscape Photographer using photoshop to remove a power line, or aircraft contrail, from across an artistic view of a beautiful mountain bathed in sublime light.
So how far do we take this? How much removing and altering is OK to do? I can only answer that question for myself… As I am often asked… How much “Photoshopping” do I do with my images and what kind…
Actually I prefer the term “Digital Darkroom” to “Photoshop.” Just as in the old days nobody would consider a photograph ‘finished” unless it had been ‘developed’ in a darkroom, likewise my images are not finished in camera. The camera only gives me essentially what amounts to a ‘digital negative.’ Photoshop (the digital darkroom) then helps me ‘develop’ a photograph to match the mental image that was triggered in me when I first saw the original scene.
But, enough with words… Since this is a photo-blog, and a picture is worth a thousand words… I will share two… See below… A picture of a beach scene as it came out of the camera, followed by how it looks now, after I finished developing it in Photoshop. That is typical of how far I, personally, may take an image…
As Paul Harvey used to say… “And now you know…” etc.
filed in Photography, Technique on May.23, 2009
May 26th, 2009 on 8:09 pm
Wow thats awesome, thats quite a difference from the raw file.
June 5th, 2009 on 5:30 am
How did you get the blues and dark clouds into the image? Is that a function of PShop contrast and color saturation or did you actually “paint” some colors on. I am an amature photographer and would love to improve some images that my mind saw as wonderful but just didn’t come out quite the way the mind’s eye sees vs. what I captured.
I enjoy the shots. Have a wonderful day.
June 5th, 2009 on 7:24 pm
Greetings Mr. Mabry and thanks for taking the time to comment.
The “digital negative” (the ‘raw’ format file generated by most pro level digital cameras) contains a lot more color information than can be seen in an unprocessed image. And, yes, increasing contrast also brings out the color that is already there.
My processing routine includes adjustments of contrast (both selective- and overall-)plus color and sharpness, in addition to various geometric modifications which allow me to essentially fine tune the composition, too. Ocassionally the blending of multiple exposures may be required, also, to enhance resolution, focus, or dynamic range.
A lot of these adjustments can be done using the standard tools that come with the latest editions of Photoshop. Then there are of course many ‘plug-ins’ ( third party software that work with Photoshop) and ‘actions’ (pre-programmed series of steps than can be activated with one or two keystrokes) which can help achieve the desired effect.
So… how much photography is done with a camera and how much in the digital darkroom? The answer would depend on the ultimate objective one is aiming at, of course, but in general, the two most important things to get right in the field are composition and exposure. Most other elements can be adjusted in Photoshop, but trying to re-create detail that was completely lost through incorrect exposure, or to repair major composition problems is usually a waste of time.