The tendency to over-Photoshop?

[ksmattfish]

When the wonder of the technology wears off the ignorant masses will go back to thinking that it's the same as it ever was. Once upon a time film was looked at as the upstart new technology that was so easy anyone could be a photographer.

What can you do about ignorance? I was asked if the colors in this photo were real.

me: What do you mean?

them: Are they created in Photoshop?

me: I had a polarizing filter on, but yes, I used Photoshop to process it (and admittedly did some tweaking).

them: Oh.

They came out of the conversation thinking that I had cheated somehow, and I came out of the conversation thinking they were ignorant of photographic process. At this point to I really want to educate them about color photography? I could point out that film and digital use layers of filtered BW (or filter patterns) to simulate color, and that there is no such thing as "real colors" when it comes to photography. But what's the point? What's important to her, and what she really asked me is:

Is this how the camera saw the scene? And the honest answer is no.

The question that is important to me is: Is this photo accurate to what what I saw and experienced visually when I stood there and made the exposure? And the answer is yes. Cameras don't see contrast like this between bright blue sky and clouds, but my eyes do. This photo is very accurate to reality as I experienced it standing there wearing polarized sunglasses. I did increase saturation, but I did it with the pol filter, just as I used to do with film, and not in Photoshop (not that I'm against it, I just like what the pol filter does better). The rocks and the lichen and the sky looked like this to my eyes. The camera came up with a drab, inferior Xerox copy of what was really there. It took processing to get around the limitations of the device.

I know how to do everything I did to the photo in PS in the traditional darkroom although it would have taken me much, much longer. Not counting the warm up time I'd need it would take me several days, if not a week or more, to get to a finished print. PS took me about 30 min. People often place extra value on tasks that require more time and effort. For me what's important has been narrowed down to the finished print: either it's good or it's not, and all I care about how much time I spent making it is that I hope I'm not wasting a bunch of time on bad photos.

"To say of a picture, as is often said in its praise, that it shows great and earnest labour, is to say that it is incomplete and unfit for view." -James McNeill Whistler

 

[roadkill]

"Beauty is in the eye..."

 

[slapshot™]

Watched a program on Ansel Adams on PBS a month or more ago. He explained the story behind, Moonrise Over Hernandez. I was somewhat shocked to see the difference in the original unaltered print to the final copy that we all know so well and enjoy. Vast difference.

Speaking only on behalf of myself, when I was shooting film I employed a totally different mind-set and feel for the subject matter depending totally on whether I was shooting in colour or b&w.

The conditions (obviously) played an important factor in how I manipulated the subject matter (ISO/filter choice/angle/DOF/etc) but there was more to it than just technical manipulation. The feel or mood of the image that I was trying to convey would ultimately determine what film I would use - colour vs b&w. Once the choice was made then the technical aspects were considered.

Was I wrong in selecting a daylight film under flourescent conditions (or vise-versa) or employing a deep red R25 filter to accent the white billowy clouds against the blue sky in a b&w image? In my mind, no. I used the tools available to me to convey what I wanted the final image to be.

I dunno....perhaps I've rambled on and have not made any sense.

Anyway, the short of it is (IMHO), use what you have available to create that final image. If the "trickery" overwhelms the viewer than I suppose you still have some work to do to master your craft. To use a hockey euphemism: if you notice the refs on the ice they aren't doing their job.

 

[timethief]

The question that is important to me is: Is this photo accurate to what what I saw and experienced visually when I stood there and made the exposure? And the answer is yes. Cameras don't see contrast like this between bright blue sky and clouds, but my eyes do. This photo is very accurate to reality as I experienced it standing there wearing polarized sunglasses. I did increase saturation, but I did it with the pol filter, just as I used to do with film, and not in Photoshop (not that I'm against it, I just like what the pol filter does better). The rocks and the lichen and the sky looked like this to my eyes. The camera came up with a drab, inferior Xerox copy of what was really there. It took processing to get around the limitations of the device.

I know how to do everything I did to the photo in PS in the traditional darkroom although it would have taken me much, much longer. Not counting the warm up time I'd need it would take me several days, if not a week or more, to get to a finished print. PS took me about 30 min. People often place extra value on tasks that require more time and effort. For me what's important has been narrowed down to the finished print: either it's good or it's not, and all I care about how much time I spent making it is that I hope I'm not wasting a bunch of time on bad photos.

I really don't think that it could be concluded in a better way. All that you said seems to fit like the last piece of a puzzle. My hat's off to you.

 

[JerryPH]

Watched a program on Ansel Adams on PBS a month or more ago. He explained the story behind, Moonrise Over Hernandez. I was somewhat shocked to see the difference in the original unaltered print to the final copy that we all know so well and enjoy. Vast difference.

If it was the same show that I saw, on it, they also mentioned that Adams was famous for reprinting shots over and over, some even hundreds of times. Some would say that he moved further away with each modification from the original, others, perhaps Ansel himself would have said that he is going closer towards finding the truth of the picture.

Since this thread started, I've been looking at the "other side" of the post processing side and well, there is good and bad easily on either side. One can under-process as easily as one can over-process.

The thing is... where is the line? More importantly, where is the line for each person?

Going from one end to the other, I must admit that I am having a lot of fun and learning about what my tastes are.

Example:

Little to no PSing:

Moderate PSing:

What I would call "over the edge" PSing (there was a reason behind why, though):

As far as the line, well, it is really tough to say what that line is, becuase it depends on the person and the situation. Personally, #3 is too far overboard for me, yet I have someone that FLIPPED and is getting a 16X24 on canvas of this picture for themselves to hang in their living room.

Post processing, no matter what it is, will be based on the tastes and needs of the situation and people involved. A main factor is also "demand". If someone walked up to me and commissioned me to do 50 family portraits in the #3 "overboard" style, you can bet I would do it, though it is not to my taste.

Is there one answer to this? Well, just like there is no answer to "what camera" or "what lens" or "what lighting setup" or anything else when it comes to photography, there is no one specific answer to this just like there was no one correct style of painting. Monet or Piccaso... Arbus or Adams, all were artists that projected a style that was the correct answer... for them and their needs, and each was correct in their own way.

I think having that attitude where PPing is concerned places the conversation in the same general arena. There is no one answer that fits all needs.

 

[bwlergh]

Moderate PSing:

TBH I think that this one looks more over photoshoped than the other two, you can clearly see that the skin on his face was overworked in some places yet left be in others for some unknown reason.

There is good photoshop and bad photoshop.

Even though this image has a moderate amount of photoshop work, it is by far more overdone (or underdone/incomplete, making it look less good, for lack of better wording) than the image number 3, reason: Image 3 in my opinion is more of an artistic interpretation of the original photograph taken. It was turned into a newspaper cartoon like image and is rather pleasing to my eye.

 

[abraxas]

... in order to keep up with the expectations of the times ...

Meh.


-
PS - Excellent images there Jerry.

 

[JerryPH]

TBH I think that this one looks more over photoshoped than the other two, you can clearly see that the skin on his face was overworked in some places yet left be in others for some unknown reason.

There is good photoshop and bad photoshop.

...Image 3 in my opinion is more of an artistic interpretation of the original photograph taken. It was turned into a newspaper cartoon like image and is rather pleasing to my eye.

Proof that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

And, oh yes, I am very aware that there is good and bad PSing, and I am quite capable of doing more of the bad stuff than the good... lol. As I said, I've just recently started into this "world" and these are pretty much some of my first forays into it. Pushing the extremes I hope is going to help me decide what my preferences are.

The discussion is less about good and bad PSing and though this is obviously more important in the end, the discussion is more about as to what is that line that crosses into too much PSing.

Image #3 had the most aggressive amount of PSing done to it and when compared to the original is also the furthest away from "reality". I really feel that I went into some serious non-reality mode when I was playing with this one. :lmao:

Like everything in life, one person's garbage is another person's treasure. I sold #3 and the owner has ordered a 16X24 on canvas, framed of this photo for their living room. Not something that I would personally do. :er:

PS - Excellent images there Jerry.

Thank-you!

 

[bwlergh]

Sorry, I should have explained myself better, what I meant was there is a very fine line between:

too much photoshop/good photoshop/bad photoshop/one's interpretation

Somehow the lot are interconnected and if you bump one of the one way or another the rest go with it, causing it to be overphotoshoped. It's not a case of if, but, or maybe sitting on the fence, it happens.

Lets say you are trying to achieve a certain effect, you finish the first round of PS work. A week later, you have a look at those images and think "Goodness gracious... what have I done?" What that tendency comes from, is not reviewing your work after you have completed it. When you work too closely to something, you don't see the effect one little thing might have on the whole image.

Oh and I loved your photos too Jerry.

 

[Joves]

I find the third one you posted Jerry is interesting because it has the look of a painting. Which makes it more toward the art side of things.

 

[CaitlinsCreations]

Ok, I skimmed through the link, but that's not THAT bad...

I am a wedding photographer, and pretty much ALL of my competition now a-days uses photoshop and photoshop actions to amp up and "modernize" their portfolio. So I have to, too, or my stuff starts to look bland in comparison. It's practically impossible to have some images without that intense saturation, etc. without them seeming "dull" now. So that is where I spend a lot of my time now--playing with photoshop.

Not that I mind--don't get me wrong. I love ps, and have a lot of fun playing around with my pics, but it is getting kind of crazy that clients are starting to expect that look right out of the camera. They don't realize that you have to spend a lot of time at the computer to amp up all of their images. A lot of people think that that is the normal look.

 

[guppyman]

I agree that photos shouldn't be over photoshopped.

I have seen many HDR-ed images that are too colourful for my preferences.

 

[Early]

Ok, I skimmed through the link, but that's not THAT bad...

I am a wedding photographer, and pretty much ALL of my competition now a-days uses photoshop and photoshop actions to amp up and "modernize" their portfolio. So I have to, too, or my stuff starts to look bland in comparison. It's practically impossible to have some images without that intense saturation, etc. without them seeming "dull" now. So that is where I spend a lot of my time now--playing with photoshop.

Not that I mind--don't get me wrong. I love ps, and have a lot of fun playing around with my pics, but it is getting kind of crazy that clients are starting to expect that look right out of the camera. They don't realize that you have to spend a lot of time at the computer to amp up all of their images. A lot of people think that that is the normal look.

Good points! You gotta go with the flow! I blame Hollywood.

 

[JerryPH]

I am a wedding photographer...

They don't realize that you have to spend a lot of time at the computer to amp up all of their images. A lot of people think that that is the normal look.

Then just price your packages accordingly so that your extra time in post processing is paid for. As a professional, you have less "creative freedom" than someone like me who is not getting paid to make anyone else but me happy. :mrgreen:

Then again, I am also not doing weddings at $2000-3000 or more per event (but am seriously considering do that next year. I am putting in tons of time in practice and experience in the PSing and photography end, and equipment-wise I am already better equipped than roughly about 75% of the pro wedding photographers that I know).

If massively PSed "Dragan" style portraits are what your clients are hiring you for, and you want the business, you will do it and just have to ramp prices up to accommodate. I know lots of pro wedding photographers that have pricing packages and extra post processing as an extra cost item on the list. An easy way to make a little more cash from each event!

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

It is your own choice to develop your style however you want. I have seen photographer that are very successful and only shoot film and use very little Photoshop and others that rely on Photoshop as their signature style. Do what you like to do and when you are good enough people will buy it.