Photography Thailand Forum

[acland]

I never seem to be able to get the best lighting in my shots. It always seems to be under the midday sun that I find something great to photograph And so I arrive at Ayuddhaya ready to get some great shots and have a picture in my mind of what I want but the light is bright, tourists abound. Anyhow, here's my new photoshop style where i create the lighting that I 'have in mind' over the images that my camera and available light give me. I should point out that I was struggling with this whole photoshop style because I'd really love to capture these sorts of images in camera... I just don't have the skills to do that yet... and feel photoshopping the images is cheating but then I argue that this could simply be my 'style' and stick with it.

Who knew photography could create so many artistic dilemas?

[Marc Schultz]

Nice shot and atmospheric lighting on this one. You may want to post the original image as well so that people can be more objective about the result of the Photoshop post production image and possibly offer other suggestions if you are wanting them on what might be done to resolve issues with the original image.

As for the moral aspect of digital post production, I am of the school that if Photoshop helps you to adjust the image so that the atmosphere comes out in the way you would have portrayed the subject had you had a paint brush and canvas instead, then I see no harm in it. Luckily for cameras though becuase I can't even draw stick figures, but that is besides the point. :)

If we are not producing imagery for documentary purposes though I see no harm in showing people what you would have wanted the picture to look like had you had technical control over every aspect of the situation. I guess I only draw the line where you turn a photo into something that is more of a CG graphic rather than a real life capture. But if you are not misleading people and only adjusting lighting, colors, or removing unwanted obstructions from an image so they don't distract, then I see no issue.

Michael Reichmann had written an article about his theories about this called "Lifting The Shroud", which I think helps to sum it up a bit. You can read more here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/shroud.shtml

I am also attaching an image I had retouched, more of a documentary image than a fine art image like the one you posted, but it follows the subject of Michael Reichmann's article.

[acland]

Hi Marc,
thanks for your comments... I also want to say that I love this forum because it's one of the only photography forums I've found where not only can I see 'before and after' images but also find out about the lighting or the photoshopping that has gone in to make the image.

With that in mind, here is the pic above but as the camera saw it.

[canon]

Hi acland,

I dont know what sort of probs you are encountering with photoshop but I do think your
photoshopped picture gives an ambient and peaceful feeling to the overal picture compared
to the original. How did you create this sunlight effect - it looks to me you multibled first then
perhaps used the burn tool alittle..?? What camera and lens did you use for this shoot?

Thanks.

[acland]

Thanks for your comments canon, I really appreciate any feedback.
This image was the first attempt at my new 'style' so here's how I do it. First of all I do a quick curves adjustment in normal blend mode, just an S curve. I then saturate the image to really make my colours super saturated and play with individual colours in hue/saturation to get the basic look.

I found this really neat trick a while ago which I want to share here. To bring out more contrast I add another curves layer and change the blend mode to soft light... this is exactly the same as duplicating the original layer and also changing the mode to soft light BUT you don't increase the file size! I then added another curves layer and set the mode to multiply (I don't do anything with the curve other than set the mode to multiply) and mask out the areas I want to keep bright.

Any dodging and burining I do by creating a new layer and fill it with 50% grey and set the mode to soft light... this has no effect on the image... then I get a soft brush, set the colour to  black or white and opacity to 20% (or thereabouts) and use that to dodge and burn... this means that if I go to far I can easily paint over it or refill the layer with grey and start again.

Now the sunlight... this took me a while to develop and I've perfected it more since this image but here goes:

I create a new layer set the mode to screen at 100% and then use a soft brush with a GREEN colour (start with a low opacity} and paint in some fog/haze/mist or whatever you want to call it. This hazy layer actuall extends over the buddhas at the right of the pic... the reason we need this haze is to make the sun rays pop. which is the next step.

Create a new layer, set the mode to overlay 100%. Use your polygon lasso tool and draw three longish triangles from the top of your pic down to the image you want highlighted. make sure the 'add to selection' boxes are selected or you will only be able to draw one triangle. Then fill the triangles with white. Blur the hell out of them with gausian blur and mask out any bits you want softer etc. The rays of light are now overlayed on the green dusty layer underneath so they seem to float a bit over the picture... you can adjust the opacity of the rays layer to make it as strong or dim as you like.

That's about it. I know it sounds like a lot of effort but it really doesn't take that long. Using the curves in different blending modes is a neat trick too because it means you can also play with the curve itself and tweak the blend and it doesn't increase the overall file size of the image which is great if you have a large file and a slow computer.

The image was taken with a Nikon D70s and a 70-300mm zoom lens.

Here's another pic I took in a dingy shop near the giant swing in Bangkok... it was cropped from a wider image but I'm learning now to take more time and maybe swap lenses to get the images I want instead of relying on photoshop. Nonetheless, I like the way the rays in my photoshopped image highlight the Buddha.

[David Procter]

Very nice looks like cave light. I really like the original too mind.

[PeterP]

Congratulations Acland - I'm really awed by the work you have done on these pictures.  Maybe one day I'll approach the sort of skill (and artistic interpretation) that you have with Photoshop.  How long have you been using it?

[Adrian Baker]

I agree with Marc on this one.  Photography is considered an art form, and as such it is the end result which is the important thing.  This whole argument has been raging since the first digital cameras came out, mostly,it has to be said, among the ranks of the keen amateur camera club members, who seem to feel that they are somehow losing out on competition wins, to those who can use their cameras skillfully, and manipulate the images equally, or possibly even more, skillfully in Photoshop. The arguments among the professional population have been noticeably less marked, most of us merely appreciating the possibility of improving our output, and therefore making it more saleable.  I for one regret that my knowlege of Photoshop is basic at best, so manipulation for me, at this time, is not an option which can be undertaken with much success, and like the original comment from Acland, I prefer to get an "in camera" result.  Let's also remember that photographic images have been being manipulated since the first picture was taken, by the use of filters, multiple exposures, skillful darkroom work and retouching, so the whole "digital is cheating" argument for me is a non-starter.  The only time it should not be done is, as Marc says, when the picture is to be used for documentary purposes, although even here, simple changes like increasing contrast, or removing an intrusive part of a person, or other object, should be considered acceptable, as long as these changes do not alter the truth of the image.  Let's imagine the important part of the picture of the trishaw man was the mudguard of the trishaw, or the sole of the man's shoe, important for reasons of evidence.  In this case it would be totally wrong to change anything, except things like sharpness, brightness or contrast, designed to make the picture clearer.  The word photography literally means "drawing with light", and that's all your doing.  Keep up the good work.

[Marc Schultz]

You raise some interesting points here Adrian. When a professional has been given a brief and the natural elements, for example, lighting, sky, background or foreground do not visually portray what is required by the brief, then there is often a limit to how close to the desired effect a photographer can get with his camera. Sometimes the desired result is also not so easily achievable without a tremendous amount of extra time and effort whereas that desired effect may be more easily achievable during post production.

At the same time, he is being paid to deliver a certain result and the client does not care how he gets from point A to point B, as long as he delivers. It is those photographers who can deliver the result time and time again who are most recognized I think.

I think the difference here is if you are just an amateur enthusiast without deadlines, time constraints and physical locational limitations, then you may be able to choose your moment when the conditions are just right.

Therefore, there are two distinct approaches here I think. One driven by necessity and the other by pleasure. So I agree, the professional’s approach and view on retouching can be quite different than the amateur enthusiast who often tends to be more of a purist in his approach. The professional however will use whatever tools he is able to pull out of his arsenal as he is more result driven rather than approach driven.

In the Introduction to a book by Barry Huggins called “Creative Photoshop Lighting Techniques” there is a 2 paragraph opening which I think sums it all up very well:

“Even the world’s greatest photographers sometimes need a helping hand to capture the image that they see in their mind’s eye. Nature has a habit of being at its most unaccommodating just at the moment you squeeze the shutter button. The speed at which the elements and lighting conditions change can leave all photographers, both professional and amateur, with a constant love-hate relationship with Mother Nature as she provides you with the image of a lifetime, only to snatch it away before you’ve had the chance to take the lens cap off.

The fact remains, that even with decades of experience, access to top of the range photographic equipment, location, timing, and a large slice of luck, the final image may be a poor reproduction of the original scene. This is where Photoshop can step in and put that “WOW” factor back into your images.”

[David Salmanowitz]

Marc--Between you and the Barry Huggins excerpt there is not much I could add as it was said very well. As far as being in the right time at the right place it happens, but not all the time. People tend to forget in this pre-Photoshop world how slides/negatives were duped together to create a final image--for example, as in inserting a full moon into a photo that did not have one.
I have no problem with "arty" obviously Photoshop photographs, my problem is when someone tries to pass them off as just like originally seen and photographed-where if they just said they were alterred no problems. I think depicting nature shots erroneously is where this annoys me. When one has a solitary fish in a school of 40 of the same species, it is fine as a fun photo or advertisement--the problem is when someone tries to pass it off as original.

[Marc Schultz]

Thank you David.

Offering another, slightly different perspective on it; photography in one respect, more than any other, is about creating images rather than only recording documentaries. If the intent is to document something and portray it exactly as it was, then that is one thing. But if the intent is to create a photographic image that looks a certain way, then what counts is meeting the objective of that portrayal.

As photographers, if all we did was present things to the world exactly as they are seen, then we would not really need photos for many things. Instead we could just imagine them. Photos offer us the opportunity to see and present things in ways that are different than what we might have ever imagined.

Now that we have another post production medium at our finger tips, which offers a helping hand in meeting photographic objectives, then why not use it to its fullest extent? Granted it is a digital medium and not analog like the methods used before, but photography has gone 90% digital already, and I think it is evident that we have fully embraced this new technology in all respects.

And as you kindly noted, it is not really any different than what photographers did in the past by putting a filter on the lens to help improve the color of a sky or reduce reflections in water, slowing down the exposure to create motion blur on a waterfall, using a double exposure technique for capturing fireworks, compositing frames of film to create an improved composition, pushing or pulling film in extreme lighting situations, using special techniques to soften skin texture, cross processing of film to create special effects, or any of the other many film developing or dark room post processing techniques of yester-year. The main difference really is that now we can do more than before. Apples for apples I guess 

Best wishes...

[Adrian Baker]

For me, this is a subject where there is really no need for confusion or controversy.  While photography is an art form it is also a vehicle for pure documentary purposes, and these too things, while there is a certain amount of crossover, should never be confused.  If the picture is required to be a work of art, then whatever you do to achieve that aim is perfectly acceptable.  Look at some of the great artists, especially the impressionists, and you will see that what they have painted is absolutely nothing like the subject they are portraying, yet it somehow manages to give us an impression of the subject, hence the name I suppose.  On the other hand you have great painters who re-create what they see with great precision, and everything is immediately recognisable, and yet these too are still only pictures as perceived by the artist.  There is still room for a little bit of artistic licence, such as dead flowers painted as red ones.  The end result is designed for nothing more than the viewing pleaure of it's audience.  These 2 types are, if you like, the equivalent of images which have been altered using Photoshop etc.

Pure documentary photography equates to pure technical drawing, such as practiced by an architect, or draftsmen.  It is precise in every detail.  It can be referred to at a later date to check facts, or to guide you, in the case of maps.  A technical drawing, for me anyway, can still be a thing of beauty, without compromising it's accuracy, and this is where the crossover between the two forms of photography takes place.  One has to decide the most important factor of the picture.  Is it purely a record, or is it still required to have some artistic value.  Almost invariably it will be the second of these choices.

You may or may not have seen some of the wildlife documentaries, produced in England, such as "Life in the freezer" etc. narrated by David Attenborough, but the quality of the photography, albeit it video, is stunning.  They are accurate depictions of the life of animals, while still using many photographic techniques, such as shooting in tanks, having cameras flying in the middle of flocks of birds etc.  These could be considered manipulation, and yet the end result is true to life.  A simple example of this type of manipulation for us, as photographers, would be going into an area which is too dark to shoot normally, and fitting the camera with a flash.  Is this wrong?  No, of course it's not, it's just doing what's necessary to get the picture.  It's the most basic form of manipulation, and yet we use it every day without even considering that fact.  Even photographs taken for reasons of evidence are usually lit by flash, to make sure all the necessary detail is visible.

Yes, it is wrong, to try and pass something off as the truth, if that situation never occurs in nature, but if it does occur, and is impossible to capture, then a way has to be found to show it as it is, and we have to use every means at our disposal to do so.  As professional photograhers we are reliant on one thing, to make a iving, and there is one word which says it all.  Impact.

[Marc Schultz]

All good points Adrian. My only question is how would you define "Passing Off"?

I feel that unless someone modifies the reality of a photograph in un-obvious ways (this would preclude obvious use of a flash which need not be disclosed), either digitally or analogous and says that they have not modified the image, then I don't see any modification made to any image as being "passing off". 

People are entitled to make their own assumptions about an image whereby the photographer does not need to feel responsible for having to disclose what he/she has or has not done to the image. The photographer may share that information if he/she so chooses, but after all, those are his/her techniques, it is his/her art work and ultimately his/her portrayal, and he/she has every right to share or not share that information with his/her audience.

I am only trying to suggest that people should not expect too much from a photographer in regards to actual portrayal unless for example the photographer is shooting an assignment for NG or a newspaper where it is understood to be a documentary and even then shots are known to be set in order to portray elements of the subject of a documentary which otherwise may not be possible to document on film.

Basically, the audience does have a right to look, but unless the photographer is making conclusive statements about the un-manipulated authenticity of an image, then I don't think one has any right of accusing the photographer of "Passing Off".

Best wishes...

[Adrian Baker]

What I define as "passing off" is very simple, and almost exactly what you wrote.  Any picture which is claimed to be unaltered, in any way, is one being passed off as the truth, when that is not actually fact.  There is a famous series of pictures, known as the Cottingley fairies, taken in 1917, taken by two young girls, passed of as evidence that fairies really do exist. These were proclaimed authentic,by no less a person than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Holmes, but in 1983, the younger of the two girls admitted the hoax, and explained how it was done.  While this was a harmless prank, on the part of a couple of kids, the same sort of thing has been attempted by others, for reasons of financial gain.  While financial gain is, in itself, a desirable thing it is, for me, essential, that no misrepresentation should be made.  A picture is a picture, a record is a record, and while the two things may, on occasion be one and the same, it should always be made clear, if alterations have been made.

When it comes to natural history photography, as long as the particular situation depicted exists in nature, then there should be no problem with altered/manufactured images.  If the solitary fish, mentioned by David, only ever exists in nature as a solitary fish, then obviously, for documentary purposes it should not be portrayed as part of a shoal, but pictorially, it doesn't matter.  I personally don't know a lot about fish, and while I find documentaries about fish interesting, I am more inclined to look at a picture of fish as a picture, rather than as proof of their behaviour patterns.

On a, to me, similar train of thought, I have, this evening, been watching a TV program about a famous picture from Vietnam, of a young girl running naked down the road, after being burned by Napalm.  This is a straight, unaltered picture, as far as I am aware, and while being an incredibly powerful image, with that indefinable "impact" quality, it remains, technically, as a record shot.  The only thing which separates this from the realms of pure record shot, is the technical expertise of the photographer, and the composition which he manged to achieve at such a terrible moment.  This is a picture, taken exactly how it was at the time, not pretending to be anything else.  It is documentary photograohy at its best, and as such, should be rewarded, as it undoubtedly was.  This is a prime example of the crossover between documentary, and pictorial photography, which I mentioned in an earlier posting.

Everyone has to decide for themselves what the objective of their particular picture is.  If the objective is pure pictorial, then anything goes.  If the objective is to satisfy the demands of a customer, then again, anything goes.  If the picture is of a natural history type subject, as long as the situation depicted exists in nature, anything goes, but if the picture is taken to be used for reasons of evidence then, obviously, no alterations should be made.  The current photographic market is changing, and not favourably.  Due to many reasons, the market for stock photography, which has sustained me for over twenty years, is in decline.  More competition, less picture buyers due to amalgamation of companies within industries and, not least, the proliferation of Internet based photographic agencies, have all combined to make this a much harder business then it used to be, and anything which gives a photographer the edge is to be welcomed with open arms.  I am regrettably a complete CENSORED WORD when it comes to using Photoshop creatively, but I congratulate those of you who are able to use it effectively.  I wish I could do the same.