Take a photograph OR Make an Image?

S

Sharkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
630
Edit My Images
Yes
Over the past few months I've been struggling a bit with finding a direction for my work to go. Part of the problem is my longtime distancing of myself from the darkroom (photoshop).
I've always preferred the picture as naked as possible (wysiwyg) but with the coming of digital control levels by the milion it seems almost impossible to take a photograph without some external influence. Even the camera software!.
So the question is. How would you set about taking photographs with digital equipment that where as faithful to the subject/camera/lens/photographer combination as possible?
I know its too big a question for me to answer in one so I hope someone out there can at least give me a start. Thanks.
 
I'm not sure it's really possible to have a "naked" photograph and to some extent I don't think it ever really was.

The neareest thing I supose would be shooting transparency and viewing in the lightbox only, where beyond picking an exposure you can effect very few changes if you process standard E6. Even then though the difference between film stocks was huge so there is an interpretation from the artist anyway.

The three main stages of making a photograph, your initial vision, the input to the camera/film and output to a viewing media (print, book, screen etc) are always going to be filled with choices that mean no two of us are every likely to produce exactly the same finshed photograph.

All that has changed with digital is that more choices have been placed within easy reach of the individual photographer.

Sorry, that's more questions rather than answers really isn't it. :lol:
 
As soon as you take your photo its already "Photoshopped" to the defaults set by the camera manufactuerer. You can adjust these if you want to some extent on the camera and then you can take pictures as naked as possible but with a preset saturation, contrast, sharpness level etc. That way you should get nice looking images from the start. Of course if you want great images you will have to use a darkroom of some form, just as everyone else does. Whether its film or digital you need a darkroom to get the best from your photos. What I would say is don't worry about it. Just take photos and learn Photoshop. Levels, curves, shadows + highlights, dodging + burning. They're all perfectly acceptable tools to use.

I myself just make images I'm happy with. I don't believe in limiting myself to make others happy. I have a wide range of tools in Photoshop and I will use them. As long as the images still look like a photograph at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. HDR is a bit of a grey area so I just say its "art" and move on :) Photography for me is about letting people see how I view the world. If I see a stunning building, I'll try my best to capture that in a way that lets others feel how I felt when I saw it.
 
Whatever camera used, the choice of aperture, shutter speed, film speed etc would affect the faithfulness of the shot in the first place.
 
Cannot disagree with your starting observations.Perhaps it is the more haphazard/guessing/experience thing that is missing. Digital on camera meters onwards. I am not a luddite (mac user) so I don't want to go back to flash powder and glass plates but I am looking for a cleaner methodology that in some way distances me from the high level mathematics of digital control-itus.
 
Is is possible to look at it the other way around?

What I mean is asking yourself whether the processing and printing obtrudes itself, or does the resulting print show just what you saw?

If you look at it that way around, then any processing you do after taking the picture can be looked at as preventing the various inherent limitations of the technology from producing an untrue image.

Particularly with digital, there never was a 'pure' image in the system. Just some ones and zeros. So maybe it's the photographer's craft to make sure those numbers get translated as a print that's true to what you saw.

After all, the eye and brain can do a lot of clever tricks too, and generally do so when you see the world. So for example, your eye and brain can compensate for massive differences in contrast that no camera can cope with. One might even say it's fair enough according to this argument, to bracket exposures and merge them to get detail in both sky and land (which is like what the brain does for the eye), but not to replace that sky by a 'better' one from another picture taken at some other place and time.
 
Maybe photography is what you saw, and art is how you saw it. I never edit the subject of my images, beyond dust, scratches, random lamp post. I just edit what the camera was able to capture. Its just light I'm playing with then.
 
Well, I must admit I've never quite been sure that merging exposures is 'true' in that sense. I don't use Photoshop, just a fairly capable RAW converter (Bibble) that can do stuff like cropping, noise reduction, fixing lens distortion and so on.
 
OK. I get the drift so far. I have been a succesful user of PS for some years in my working daysand I suppose it is that dependence that I am seeking to slip away from. Making my image closer to my vision my be the very thing I am trying to reform in my work. I look back at great reportage work of the past and see nothing but massive imperfections. Imperfections that the technology of the time couldn't clean up. Yet there greatness as images shines through.
The perfect representation of an image in front of my camera could be brilliant/perfect but in some way I'd like to see photography with the worts.
CT produces as near to perfection in what he does and I thik that is glorious but, I don't see the world as he does and somehow Iwant my work to reflect that. More pleas this is helping..
 
People could do it with film, why stop now? Plus it can produce a more natural photo closer to what the eye can see than a normal shot.
 
Might it be worth having a bash at just using a good RAW converter Sharkey?

That way the satanic temptations of CS2 won't be immediately available :)

... but you'll still be able to fix things like skewed horizons or crop out stuff that's sticking into the frame.
 
Now you've got me going!

I'm having a running battle at our camera club, in fact with the whole East Anglian Federation..... :bang:

There is a competition which is based purely on slides. Well, I pride myself in having developed the abilitiy to produce, what I consider to be, good images in camera.... you have to get it all right from the start - composition, exposure, focus, balance of light, (shadow and highlights), etc....

My problem? I'm competing against "photographers" who don't use any film. Digital images, photoshopped, masked, levelled, cropped, cloned, colour balanced.... you name it, they do it. Then they send the image off to a company and they get back 35mm slides to enter into competitions.... :annoyed:

How is it that, in any way, fair competition?

To my mind producing top images "in camera" proves a photographer's worth with a camera, not his ability on a 'puter. I have tried to point out it is a Camera Club and the competitions are against other Camera Clubs but I don't get anywhere .... what's the point? :help: :bang:

The EAF President told me the end result is the same - you end up with an image and it's cheaper :shrug:

Cheaper? Film slr + lens £250... film £8.95 for 36 shots.... D200 £899, computer £*** need I go on?

The laser produced trannies are of absolute c**p quality in comparison to something like Velvia.... :razz:
 
For me it's all about creating an image i'm happy with and my interpretation of the scene i'm shooting.

If it looks ok straight form the camera then fine but sometimes i mess about in CS2 and come up with something that looks nothing like the original.

Whether other people like it or not is irrelevant to me, i'm not doing it for others, i'm doing it for me (if you get my drift.)
 
The photo club problem is about as close to my problem as I could describe and I commiserate. Getting it right in the camers pretty much sums it up but also recognising the personality of a picture. ? Washed out colours because they were there as opposed to lovely picture with the colours added in later.Chuckles we seem to be on a wavelength and Jason perhaps your advice is the most profound. Sod it. I like it that way. Thanks to everyone (so far) it has helped a lot.
 
Druid said:
Might it be worth having a bash at just using a good RAW converter Sharkey?

That way the satanic temptations of CS2 won't be immediately available :)

... but you'll still be able to fix things like skewed horizons or crop out stuff that's sticking into the frame.
Click to expand...

This looks like the way forward. I have lightroom coming (dont know why):thinking: Perhaps using that as the raw converter for B&W as well will be enough. Thanks..
 
Great photographers have been manipulating film and prints , in the development of the film (pushing etc) ,and in the enlarger (burning and dodging) since they realized they could do it. They did it because the materials they were using could not capture the ranges of light etc that they could see and it was a way of conveying to the viewer what they " saw".
Same goes for digital . Photoshop and programs like it are digital dark rooms used to manipulate "digital film and paper" to what you wish to convey to the viewer.
 
I suspect though that there's a subtle but real difference between asking yourself 'Is that what I actually saw?' and 'Is that what I want to convey?'
 
To me, a photograph is what I take, an image is what I present.

It's not possible to take a photograph that is not in some way changed by the development process, even the slides the camera club purists that chuckles mentions take are modified by the person developing them to some extent.

There's something to be said for taking the best image you can in camera but as Pete says why restrict yourself to that if you can improve an image with a little (or a lot of) post production. In the end if the image you present says what you wanted it to say, you've succeeded.
 
It seems to me that that Cartier-Bresson ethic, no cropping etc, is a personal discipline, something which you choose to accept to improve your own work, which can evidently (at least in HCB's case) lead to excellent photographs.

Having said that though, a constraint that you accept for personal reasons is for your own benefit. There's no point in getting upset about it if others don't choose to follow the same path. It may very well be worth doing for its own sake, but the benefit is personal.
 
I think this thread represents the biggest split in terms of the two main types of photographer.

There are those that place the importance on the destination and those that place it on the journey. There is no right or wrong and neither way has any claim to a moral high ground but there will always be this split.

I actually see it from both sides. When I'm shooting for clients, I couldn't care less how I get the result as long as they're happy, pay the bill and come back again. I'll use any technique or technology available and if there's a way to automate and de-personalise any of it, even better.

When I shoot for myself, for the joy of creating an image, I take great pleasure and pride in creating in the camera. It's just what pleases me and how I like to spend my time. I may be able to create a better image with all the powers of the pixel and PS at my disposal but it can't come even close to crafting something in the camera. Getting the exposure spot on for the 3 and a bit stops of latitude that tranny film gives but not actually knowing for certain until that lightbox moment at the lab. It's all part of what makes the jouney so much more than the destination for me.

Even today though when we have all these amazing tools at our disposal it's all about our attitude to the images we make and how we make them that's important.

You maybe able to find the most pure and naked process ever used Sharkey but it could possibly end up looking just the same to me as someone who shoots all auto in the camera and then goes mad with PS. It's how it makes YOU feel that's important and nothing else really matters. Unless it's paying the mortgage, in which case I say do whatever it takes. ;)
 
Agreed with much of all that and can be sure it is a personal thing. My question was really that if I choose to restrict myself in the ways we have discussed what is the best methodology to persue within the digital medium?
I'm looking for suggestions of how not for why. If you get my drift.
 
Ahhhh, gotcha now.

Well certainly restrict yourself to proccessing steps that effect all pixels in the image equally. Perhaps use daylight or tungsten white balance only?

Then perhaps things like batch process all the images from a shoot in terms of brightness and contrast. You'd only shoot jpeg and not raw too of course

You'd be getting closer to the nature of shooting film and printing straight that way but it sounds a bit daft when it's listed out like that.

Out of interset, why not just shoot film. As an odd ball thought. For less than most digi SLR's you could get a Shen Hao 10x8 camera. There is nothing quite like the exquisite detail and tone from a 10x8 b&w contact print.
 
A single Raw convertor. Basic B&W conversion. No post adjustments and consistant printing. I hated the change to digital and the loss of my beloved 1V but having gone the whole hog the bloody mindedness that used to get me 'the shot' says with digital I'll stay. You seem to be able to get my perspective on this. Can you see a method you would try?
 
Can you see a method you would try?
Click to expand...

Well I think the way to move as far from digi process and as close to the principles of film as you can is to do it all in the camera. Shoot JPEG and don't do any additional processing at all to the file before printing.
 
Shoot RAW and convert to an image with minimal processing to make it come out as you saw it. Shooting RAW means the camera is not creating the image and doing it's own processing, it's simply saving the data for you to deal with later.

You will always need to do some processing, even film has to be developed and development time etc. affect the finished article.

/edit lols the opposite to dazzajl.
 
Any photographer that thinks Photoshop isn't "real" photography is just being daft tbh. Whichever way you acquire your image the end result is what matters. Whether it be from a £80 digital camera, a 10 year old SLR wysiwyg or a £2000 DSLR with 4 hours photoshop manipulation as long as the image is what you want and you like the result forget about everything else.
 
I see and understand that direction. Lets say that by putting in Fuji Velvia I improve my chances of a good output would that equat to shooting raw but 'fixing' the conversion method and batch processing?
 
BBW said:
Any photographer that thinks Photoshop isn't "real" photography is just being daft tbh. Whichever way you acquire your image the end result is what matters. Whether it be from a £80 digital camera, a 10 year old SLR wysiwyg or a £2000 DSLR with 4 hours photoshop manipulation as long as the image is what you want and you like the result forget about everything else.
Click to expand...

At no time have I said PS was unreal. I've been involved far too long in this game to be that pretentious. Each to his own! This is an exercise if you like for me to find somthing that has gone missing in my work since I retired. To find an inspirational discipline within which to work.
 
Whichever way you acquire your image the end result is what matters.
Click to expand...

As a journey person I just can't understand that. How I make my images is at least as important, if not more so than whether they end up in the keeping or chucking pile.

I guess it comes down to whether you'r passion is for making images or having them.

Lets say that by putting in Fuji Velvia I improve my chances of a good output would that equat to shooting raw but 'fixing' the conversion method and batch processing?
Click to expand...
That sounds like a passable equation to me. :)
 
Steep said:
Shoot RAW and convert to an image with minimal processing to make it come out as you saw it. Shooting RAW means the camera is not creating the image and doing it's own processing, it's simply saving the data for you to deal with later.

You will always need to do some processing, even film has to be developed and development time etc. affect the finished article.

/edit lols the opposite to dazzajl.
Click to expand...

OK.
How about this.
Default settings within the camera.
" " " Raw convertor.
Batch process to non compressed Tiff with fixed settings.
Should mean the only variables are me, the lens , the subject!
What do you think?:thinking:
 
You could even allow yourself a few processing varients. In the same way that fuji films look different to kodak or agfa and different ISO's give different tonal representations.

You know, as long as you find something that keeps your passion for shooting photographs burning, it's all good!:D
 
One of our lady contributors only uses one lens. Hmmmmm? Maybe not for me. I have really appreciated everyones input to this and will get off my arse very soon to put some of it (not all) into action.
 
Sharkey said:
OK.
How about this.
Default settings within the camera.
" " " Raw convertor.
Batch process to non compressed Tiff with fixed settings.
Should mean the only variables are me, the lens , the subject!
What do you think?:thinking:
Click to expand...

Shooting RAW means the camera makes no decisions at all about the output image other than those you choose to make i.e. exposure/dof

Yes to uncompressed TIFF (16 bit if you can handle it)
How much the raw converter changes the file depends on what converter you choose to use so you will have to experiment to get the base result you want.

There's only one e in lens :)
 
Let me preface this post by saying that I am quite drunk. Anyway.

I am a film shooter, pure and simple, that's it and that's all. It's not because I'm anti-digital, but because I'm pro after-I-shoot-it-there's-damn-little-I-can-do-to-fix-it. I want it right in camera, period. Slight adjustments to exposure or contrast are nothing I sweat about, but I damn sure am not going to remove a lamp post from someone's head in the darkroom. I'd rather eat glass.

I like the challenge of getting things right in camera. Don't tell me it can't be done; I teach photography to both digital and film shooters. The main difference in the thought process is that the digital folk generally shoot with the "I can fix it later" thought in the back of their minds. It's not a matter of whether you can, but a matter of whether you should. More to the point, it's a matter of whether you should have to.

You CAN shoot a wonderful image with no adjustments. Moreover, you SHOULD be able to do so 98% of the time. If you can't do that, you need to look at your technique and ask yourself why.

The wine is now putting me to bed. Thank you.

- CJ
 
Through necessity I have to keep processing down to an absolute minimum. 99% of the time I shoot in JPEG, batch process the shots which is no more than resize and smart sharpen, don't normally even bother with levels. If I've messed up on exposure or anything at the time the shot just gets deleted, I don't normally bother trying to recover anything in PS.
 
''You CAN shoot a wonderful image with no adjustments. Moreover, you SHOULD be able to do so 98% of the time. If you can't do that, you need to look at your technique and ask yourself why.''

here here!

I have nothing against digital images and I do enjoy the creative options they allow.......

but if you can't create quality photos using film or just without all the processing tools we have now, then you're not a photograper. That's not to say you aren't an artist and all arts surely deserve the same chance for respect but photography is about being able to create with a camera.
 
But what about all those photographers who used a darkroom? Aren't they photographers too? It all depends on the subject. If you're shooting sports you need to get great images directly from the camera. If you're shooting landscapes you can use darkroom techniques to enhance the image because the camera will be limited by what it can capture. If you're using a studio you should get a good image from the camera, and I see no reason why you again shouldn't use the darkroom (digital or real) to enhance you're already good image. Its all about the end result, not the middle part. No-one posts images here that are half done here. No-one here starts a thread about how wonderful their straight from camera images are because they know it takes a bit of time in the darkroom to finalise the imagery.

The end result is what makes people go "Oooh" not the technique, or equipment.
 
dazzajl said:
''You CAN shoot a wonderful image with no adjustments. Moreover, you SHOULD be able to do so 98% of the time. If you can't do that, you need to look at your technique and ask yourself why.''

here here!
Click to expand...
We can argue about this till the cows come home - in fact I think we have a few times. ;) I'm not 'Holy Grail' about it by any means but I broadly agree with the above. Having said that there's no escaping the fact that the film devotee has umpteen darkroom tools at his/her disposal to rescue a less than ideal negative. Extended or reduced time in the developer, harder or softer grades of paper and no end of dodging and burning at the enlarging stage. We have to take the purists' word for that they don't employ all these techniques which are just Photoshop in a far less convenient form. ;)

With all the photo restoration work I've done there isn't much I can't tackle in the way of image manipulation, but I wouldn't dream of applying some of those drastic techniques to my own stuff. I wouldn't hesitate though to remove the odd twig spoiling an otherwise good shot. Having said that there are people who produce stunning work with highly manipulated images and it doesn't render their work any less less valid or worthy in my book. The only thing which reduces the credibilty of that type of work is lying about it. :shrug:
 
I always try to get it right "in camera" and am thrilled when I get a photo on screen and it's turned out broadly how I was intending. It doesn't always of course but slowly I think I'm improving. That said, I will always take my "keepers" into Photoshop to see how they can be further enhanced / improved. I don't see this as cheating in any way, I see it as using the tools available to me to improve my photographs further. A perfect example of this is processing a landscape RAW file once for the foreground exposure and once for the sky, then merging the two in PS. I am quite comfortable with this tbh. The only time I see a problem is if someone was to enhance a photo in PS and claim that it was "as is, out of the camera". That would be cheating. Just my 2p worth ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top