Photog swears he does not alter his images. Is it possible to get these colors?

[AnthonyBayer]

I saw him at an art fair in Arizona a few months ago. He had a printed FAQ posted in his tent that specifically mentioned no PS. I was skeptical (or amazed) and asked him if this meant no levels or saturation, as I know that L&S are considered "in bounds" (along with rotate & crop) to some looser "purists." He said no but he was vague, a little cagey, and seemed either bored or put off by the question, and mildly dickish about it so I didn't press further. Maybe just my imagination, but you'd think a professional wouldn't mind a technical question, which made me wonder if he was uncomfortable because he was lying, which is why I'm asking here. I should add that the fair was dead that day, so he wasn't busy. Anyway, my wife and I liked his work so we bought a box of his greeting cards. My wife just pulled one out today to mail to somebody and again I was struck by the saturation, so decided to post the question to y'all. The only substantive part of his reply was that he gets his shots by spending a hell of a lot of time in one place (out shooting almost every day of the year) until he gets the right light.

his website...

www.jeffreymurrayphotography.com

 

[Robin Usagani]

Of course he increased the saturation or even the hue and illumination of the color channels. If you want JPEG, you must process it. Unless he shoots it with JPEG not RAW, I dont believe him.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I didn't see that disclaimer on his site that he doesn't PP?

 

[AnthonyBayer]

He told me at an art show. The prints were BIG and Beautiful! Some of the best I've ever seen and I have been looking at fine art photography for years. He said they were a mix of 35mm, digital and medium format. I love his work and just wish I could get colors like him with minimal PP.

 

[Overread]

"I don't PP" Is always a false statement since both film and digital photos require that they be processed from the camera in order to provide a viable, viewable print. Heck just to get something print ready requires a level of processing in itself.However Adobe has spent a fortune on marketing bringing home the idea that Photoshop can take the most horrific image imaginable and turn it into a prize winning wonder with a "few simple clicks" and "no great skill" involved. Thus many say that "they don't edit" meaning more that they don't perform any many alterations to the photograph outside of what the camera captures. When marketing and trying to sell its easy for them to say "no editing done" to give their photos a level of authenticity in this modern world of photoshop trickery. Chances are he just didn't want to get into an in-depth chat about it whilst trying to sell his wares or was worried that you'd start on the argument presented above or somesuch. He could also be of the generation that don't know much about computers and who had most of their 35mm film developed at the lab - and thus learnt with the idea of getting it right in camera being the only controlling phase (ie not respecting the work that went on at the lab in the form of corrections eg white balance setting) - pulling this into the digital world via use of the straight out of camera JPEG.Personally I wouldn't worry about it overly much - maybe he is using a saturation boost in his JPEGs maybe he is processing his RAWs (well he has to if they are RAW ) but he might also be making full use of polarizers, ND and ND-Grad filters as well as spending ages waiting for just the right light

 

[AnthonyBayer]

Thats why i decided to post it here. He said he spends much of his life on the road traveling and waiting up to a month for the right light. He was much more into talking about the adventure and the story behind each image rather than the techy stuff. He didnt seem too techy.

 

[480sparky]

Isn't the mere fact that he takes a digital file and uses that to create a print considered PP?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Bitter Jeweler gets credit for posting this link in another thread. I bookmarked it and I thought it may apply here. Are your Colors Manipulated? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel – eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog

 

[shortpants]

Well I'm sure he can get colors like that with film. I forget what film I used when I went to Hawaii but the colors were almost blinding. I'm sure he must do some minimal processing though, it's kind of hard not to.

 

[jake337]

Well I'm sure he can get colors like that with film. I forget what film I used when I went to Hawaii but the colors were almost blinding. I'm sure he must do some minimal processing though, it's kind of hard not to.

His site states he uses a canon 5d(digital) and canon 1v(film). Maybe he meant he doesn't use a computer for PP when using digital and sets everything up in camera.

 

[Derrel]

I looked through the first 25 images on the web site: I see heavy use of graduated neutral density filters to control sky brightness. Which is a pretty traditional, established way of balancing scene brightness range to the dynamic range of the film or sensor in use. A lot of his shots are done during PRIME lighting conditions too: early,early in the day, and late,late in the day. He's sort of working the old-school landscape photographer routine: travel all over and get yourself to cool places, with interesting subject matter in front of the lens, when the light on the scene is good to excellent, tripod mount the camera, and shoot,shoot,shoot. By using the graduated ND filters and or polarizing filters, and the "right" technique, the images come out looking beautiful. His Canon 5D has better image quality than the 35mm Nikons and Pentaxes that were used with Kodachrome II in the late 60's and 70's by so,so many landscape shooters that roamed the world back in that era, doing EXACTLY what this young guy is doing.

I once had the opportunity to see some of the most exceptional snow/mountaineering/wilderness photos shot by a professional shooter in the late 60's, on Kodachrome II. He made extensive use of the 28mm and 50mm Pentax Super-Takumar lenses. I was amazed at the way those two lenses drew. Just fantastic pictures! Straight off of slides, no manipulation needed.

I have seen some young, self-taught shooters who go to neat places, but who shoot during crap light, and think that they can mask off skies, paint in fake skies, and HDR their way to interesting pictures, even though the lighting is absolute dreck. This guy is actually doing "photography" in the traditional sense of an experienced practitioner who realizes that good light and proper, refined technique is much more critical than one's Photoshop skills.

 

[Paulwil]

After taking a peak at his work, I am going to guess it is a combination of things. Settings in the camera being spot on, combination of filters and the perfect light. I would also bet his glass probably cost as much as a used car. Beautiful stuff he has on his page though.

 

[shortpants]

Yes I mean the light is stunning in his photos, you can't Photoshop that.

 

[AnthonyBayer]

I know i agree. Check out this one. After The Storm | Jeffrey Murray Photography

 

[JBArts]

Oh Jeffrey Murray photo collections are winning, aesthetically impressive! Major major like his page! I'm glad you share it to us. But I think He only uses a nice set of camera to capture beautiful scene. Thanks again!