The title alone is capable of unrest in the photography world. This debate of using photoshop to enhance an image is like a new born star. Burning bright with no end in sight. Much is written on both sides of the topic so I thought I would throw some of my consideration into the fire. I would like to hear any and all opinions on this topic if you feel so inclined.
Documenting a landscape or nature scene is a primary reason for taking a picture, after all It’s worth a thousand words. Documentation as representation to actuality is a myth when it comes to photography. Taking a picture is going to be just that, a picture. An image as produced by the device taking the picture not your eyes. So right off the bat true representation of the image is flawed. Did that camera take a picture of what you saw? Or did it capture the light as best it can? Of course the second applies. So what are you to do about the image? Make it better right? Make it the way you want it to be. Getting it as close as possible to the what you recall the scene looking like. It may be bringing out the small unnoticeable details in the scene. It may be enhancing the scene, highlight the rich colors. And it may be all of these plus more. That choice is up to you, the photographer. Now, how are you going to do this, I’m on the road of digital photography with this article but the same holds true whether you use a digital darkroom such as photoshop or a chemical darkroom, (by the way, the digital one smells better).
I don’t want to stray to far down the road of right or wrong, there is no right or wrong. There is only choice. One doesn’t outperform the others. It blows my mind when I read how folks seems to despise a photograph that “appears” to be enhanced, the issue almost always seems to be with color saturation. The problem to me is that it is just to darn easy to move that saturation slider. If a little is good a lot is better. Now we all know that isn’t true but just how much is enough? Again, the choice is yours.
When I started down my journey of photography and the learning of photoshop I was amazed at how I could take an otherwise dull scene and give it a punch of color to brighten things up. How cool. A few seasons of photographs in my archives reveled very brilliant colors. As time progressed and I saw similar works I began to notice some photographs that very apparently did not have this punch of color added to them. They looked very “natural”, which can be a nice way of saying kinda “plain”. And the work from talented photographers became more and more appealing to me. It wasn’t from the color of the scene but the scene itself. I started comparing my work to works of those who use of the saturation slider was much less than mine. And I noticed something. Adding a blast of color doesn’t make a bad scene good. I would go as far to say it doesn’t even make a good scene great, but I will stop there.
With my new found opinion of over saturation my work began to take on a new look. One of the scene. That being elements of the scene, composition of the scene and in general just a better looking picture to look at. At least that was my goal. My opinion of the saturation slider had changed somewhat. It’s not a fix all, it’s not even a fix anything. It’s a way to give a very good or great image somewhat of a “wow” factor. So is there suppose to be something wrong with that? Like you now have altered reality? Guess what, as soon as you snapped the picture and recorded it on traditional or digital film you altered it’s reality.
I attended a good sized art fair last summer and checked out all the photographers and their work. One photographers work stood out from the rest. A fellow from Colorado who’s double booth setup was full of small to large beautiful landscapes of the Rockie Mountains and scenic vistas. His work truly was nice. In his booth he had set up on a tripod a large view camera, with sign reading, “This is a the camera used to take these pictures” and in a few places hanging in the booths were additional signs reading “No Digital Manipulation”. Ok, I’m going to be carefull here because I have no proof of what or how he does his work. But if some of those scenes looked exactly like the pictures, I will eat this computer. But besides that, it was the attempt to make “Digital” out to be some kind of reality manipulating monster. I will lay down a bet with anyone who cares to venture that in the hands of a master a digitally produced image will outperform the reality test over a film captured image every time. What immediately comes to mind is that I have never looked at a nature scene in reality and noticed “grain” such as is produced by some films. I guess I could hang a sign in my booth saying “Closer to reality, No Grain”. Ok, I’m sure you get my point.
Photography has came a long way since the times of gun powdered flashes or what ever it was they used. You have a choice. You like film, great. I bet you use the best film you can for the situations you shoot. Velvia for brilliant landscapes and skies? Digital manipulation? No, reality manipulation? Yep. So what’s the issue? Creativity is and should be totally personal. Coming from the imagination, heart and soul of the creator. There is no right or wrong. I know of no other field of art where doing something one way is right and a different way is wrong. If you see a photograph and the leaves on the trees are too red and look fake, then stop looking at it, just walk away and go make your own photograph of the tree.
It can be difficult to put down all the pros and cons of this matter and I didn’t attempt to do that. It, like the pictures I take these are my interpretations. Some facts do stand out as just that. A photograph is not reality. It may be the closes thing we can have to how something actually looks, that is if we take a good picture of it from all different angles and in all different lighting conditions and with… a hundred other factors that can change the way it looks.
I have recently introduced some additional software into my workflow. “Enhancement” software, yes that evil reality manipulating stuff that all horrible pictures are made from. In this case the evil doer is made by Topaz Labs, and they come in the form of photoshop plugins. There is another monster on the horizon made by the evil doers NIK. Both these pieces of software are made to manipulate, enhance, change, make more real, make less real whatever you chose to call it, help the photographer get the results he or she desires from their photographs. How dare I use such reality altering monsters to produce nature photography. Ok, 40 lashes for me, done deal.
Create the photographs you want, with “create” being the key. Make what you like and you will want to continue making them. Allowing growth, development and happiness. If I have to make the sky bluer and the grass greener to do that, seems like a small price to pay.
© Brad Mangas
This is an image that has been reworked using some of the new evil tools. Fake, or real? Good or bad? Like or dislike?
Brad,
In my (current) opinion I feel it is fair to use whatever tools that are available to create a compelling image, whether it be digital or film based. Image manipulation has been going on since the first plate hit the developer in the 19th century. If you took away all the burning and dodging tools most classic photographers would have produced lots of mediocre work. That said I personally feel that in landscape and nature photography it is important to try and keep to a realistic rendition as much as possible. I recently found it pretty offensive that a certain calendar publisher that requires photographers not to submit over manipulated images is putting out a product with some of the most grossly overly saturated stuff I’ve seen.
I think the above image has gone a bit too far both in saturation and contrast. But that’s just my opinion…
Alan,
I appreciate your opinion and comments. Tools, such as those in photography are only as good as the craftsman using them. Your experience with the calendar company is what make this such an issue to me. When I look at a shot with a photographer’s eye (such as the above) I totally agree with you. When I ask a non-photographers opinion the comment I got was “wow, that’s pretty”! No mention of the realness of the look. It seems to be a struggle at least for me still at the present of, what should the final look be? One of “let the camera speak for itself” or one of “wow, that’s pretty”! My opinion sways like a gentle breeze when it comes to “slightly” over use. The above image is in that vain.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Brad,
I share your views on this subject. I am new to photography and own a Nikon D90. (Doesn’t make me a great photographer,just a Nikon owner.) I realized that the preset settings, landscape, portrait, macro, etc. are all set by someone based on factory settings. Nikon called the settings for saturation, contrast and sharpness “Optimize Image” or Picture Controls” Not all cameras perform from the factory the same. I like to use their settings as guides, since I am new to photography, yet I like making custom settings in camera that allow me to get the effects and colors I am seeing when taking the photos. One thing in particular I notice is the contrast setting of the camera is too flat at factory setting. I almost always want to sharpen the factory setting.
Sometimes, a photographic opportunity unfolds quickly and I revert back the preset options to have an opportunity to catch the image. It is with software that I can go back and change those images to get the “custom settings” I would have used in the camera if the time would have allowed.
So in my opinion, the camera itself is a manipulation of what is real based on the factories perceptions of what is right under certain conditions. Art is the expression of imagination, and I dream in very vivid colors. I set my settings on the camera more vivid, more sharp, and contrastier than what comes from the factory. I do this for each custom setting I have, Vivid, Portrait, Landscape, and so on.
So, is there a difference in software manipulation and digital camera manipulation? Not really. I think as long as you are not adding something to the scene that was not there originally, and are only enhancing the photograph to express your interpretation of what you saw, then you are well within the confines of what should be ethical for artistic photography.
As always, I really appreciate your insight and thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
Corky Heller
Thank you Corky for the reply. Your views seem to align with mine. One of the great benefits of photography is being able to express your own views (literally) of the world as you see it or want to see it. Photography needs to be an expressions of your own views or interpretations of reality. Even when images are manipulated sometimes to the extreme if done with personal expression of the artists views they are representative of what the artist is trying to express. The bottom line to me is make it fun, enjoy this wonderful craft of photography and let the world know how you chose to see it. Be young at heart and your work will reflect that.
Nicely written Brad. I couldn’t agree with you more, especially “Creativity is and should be totally personal. Coming from the imagination, heart and soul of the creator. There is no right or wrong.” Personally I don’t believe there really is one “reality” so how can 1 person and 1 camera record “reality” anyway? No photograph can ever truly represent reality…at least not as we might experience reality in any given moment…cameras can’t feel, can’t “experience” or “perceive” all they can do is record. It is up to the artist to bring the feelings and experience out and if that takes post-processing then why wouldn’t you use every tool that is available?
Thanks again for another thought provoking post.
I have seen that sign before on “No Digital Manipulation.” It always makes me wonder if they did some big market study that shows a demographic out there that just seeks “no digital” photographs. It is a tired, old argument that will never be “won.” If they are truly honest in their claim, that’s fine to have that method of approach to their work. But they shouldn’t portray it as a negative thing either against those that do have a more open view.
Appreciate the comment on this Mark, I go through phases myself in the amount of “enhancements” I feel like I should be providing an image. I always seem to fall back to the more “artistic” approach to photography which I believe is the benefit of having a more open view as you point out.