Digital darkroom in photojournalism

[Thisisaline]

Hi all,

I've long been interested in photojournalism/documentary photography but always had one main difficulty in trying to learn more about the related digital post-processing workflow. Unfortunately, the topic is often shunned as diverting from the actual process of creating a photo, and info and discussions, if any, on it is minimal and typically limited to the basic and general points of no manipulation and basic adjustments.

Yesterday, I came across this article from BJP from some months ago, http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...-digital-age-photojournalists-10b-photography, about post processing in photojournalism and 10b Photography, a digital imaging lab that specialized in digital development for professional photojournalists, along with before and after examples. More examples of their work can be seen at the links at the bottom. It may not be to everyone's taste and not all the examples seen may be the best. But the point is that while most of us know all about the abilities of photo editing software and that post-processing in photojournalism is restricted, it is clear that many, if not most, professional photojournalists use it to some extent to enhance their work, often giving them a certain 'depth' if you will over the relatively flat original images, and that it is an important part in the creation of the final images.

Rather than discussing what is and is not allowed in post-processing in photojournalism, I would like to ask for your knowledge and opinions about what tools (contrast/curves, color balance, dodge/burn, etc.) and techniques (how these tools are used) photojournalists use for their images. Also, where can one learn more about it?

http://www.10bphotography.com/index.php?page=ethic&lang=eng#

http://pjlinks.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/screen-shot-2011-12-22-at-00-23-271.png?w=700

 

[jsrockit]

No comments on post processing, since that is a subjective thing. However, notice how the strong images work whether post processed or not.

 

[Lss]

notice how the strong images work whether post processed or not.

Absolutely. I looked at a few of them, and liked the original better in about 50% of the cases. I'm not sure I would pay for such a service. It's like flipping a coin, but then you always lose the coin.

 

[peterm1]

Absolutely. I looked at a few of them, and liked the original better in about 50% of the cases. I'm not sure I would pay for such a service. It's like flipping a coin, but then you always lose the coin.

In most of the photos in the first link I preferred the first (original) version. The processed ones are excessively contrasty to my eye some of them to the point of being "over the top". I do not rate myself as a photojournalist so I feel free to post process the heck out of my own images. I am looking for a result - not for a faithful reproduction of what I saw.

But for PJs surely its different. Shouldn't post processing of photojournalistic shots simply be about adjusting the image to correct for issues / problems not turning it into something else (always a fine line I grant you).

 

[v_roma]

I agree. Mostly prefer the unprocessed versions. That's not to say that they couldn't be improved but I think they went too far. Not just with the contrast but, it seems, with the toning or maybe desaturation.

 

[BobYIL]

+1 to the group who liked the originals better. I recall a number of prize photographs (especially some awarded with Pulitzer) that are technically worst.. However when the content "shines" neither eye nor mind seeks any further elements to be impressed further.

 

[Thisisaline]

Hey guys, thanks for your replies.

However again, rather than diverting to comparisons between the processed and unprocessed photos and what should or should not have been done, what tools and techniques do photojournalists use to enhance their images?

I think many use similar methods as to what is seen in the examples, albeit to varying and perhaps often lesser degrees. But what are they?

 

[jsrockit]

But for PJs surely its different. Shouldn't post processing of photojournalistic shots simply be about adjusting the image to correct for issues / problems not turning it into something else (always a fine line I grant you).

I don't see any instances were the photo was turned into something else though here. All of these same things were done in the darkroom too right?

Should we only accept what the sensor deems to be good processing?

 

[Murchu]

I don't see any instances were the photo was turned into something else though here. All of these same things were done in the darkroom too right?

Should we only accept what the sensor deems to be good processing?

Not so sure about that, as with the pictures linked, I felt with a few of them, there was a conscious attempt to add drama that wasn't there. Not talking about the contrast as such, but rather the blackening of the smoke in the first image when the original smoke was clearly not black, and the zombification/ ghoulification in the second image for example. I know the op was not trying to focus discussion on these elements, but rather the technical steps with how photojournalistic images are edited, but was a little appalled by the changes to the above images I mentioned, which I guess crossed a line for me, for what I expected of pj images.

EDIT: you are correct though, nothing was added, as such, above perceived slants aside.

 

[swoop]

Basically you really want to limit yourself to the same capabilities you had when you were working in a darkroom. Dodge, burn, contrast, color, spotting for dust. And truthfully, once you actually make it and get a job at a news outlet, your deadlines are going to be so tight you won't have time for editing techniques beyond those basic adjustments.

The strength of photojournalism photographs are in their subjects. It's all about telling the story. I think second is composition. A good photojournalist can provide a unique perspective on events. Third is timing, being there at the right moment, and pushing the shutter at the right time and the fourth is lighting, you often can't control your light when on assignment but a good photojournalist can find good light and utilize it when available. Rarely is the way an image is processed a factor in the impact of a news photograph.

 

[jsrockit]

Not so sure about that, as with the pictures linked, I felt with a few of them, there was a conscious attempt to add drama that wasn't there. Not talking about the contrast as such, but rather the blackening of the smoke in the first image when the original smoke was clearly not black, and the zombification/ ghoulification in the second image for example.

But how do we know what the smoke looked like? The original is just what the sensor captured not exactly what it looked like in person (not to mention people's eyes see differently too right).

 

[Murchu]

But how do we know what the smoke looked like? The original is just what the sensor captured not exactly what it looked like in person (not to mention people's eyes see differently too right).

It certainly is possible, but seems like a conscious attempt to crank up the drama, to my eye though, and none of those images would be a positive endorsement of 10b, in my opinion. I do take your point about the rendering off the sensor though, but my gut feeling remains that the editing of that image was a crude attempt to make the dramatic scene look even more dramatic.

 

[Teuthida]

The false assumption is that the files as they come out of the camera are somehow "neutral." it reflects a naïveté about the nature of photographs.

All photographs are interpretations. The one that works best is the most effective interpretation for the point your are trying to convey.

This isn't a digital issue. Photojournalists have been dodging and burning, printing on high contrast paper and cropping images since the inception of the profession.

 

[jsrockit]

but my gut feeling remains that the editing of that image was a crude attempt to make the dramatic scene look even more dramatic.

Certainly... but you can add drama by how you choose to frame, what lens is used, what you leave out of a photo, by under-exposing / overexposing, filters, development, film choice, etc. Adding drama by processing is what some choose to do. However, the content is not changed, just the mood.

A well known instance of just changing the mood of a photo:

 

[Murchu]

Certainly... but you can add drama by how you choose to frame, what lens is used, what you leave out of a photo, by under-exposing / overexposing, filters, development, film choice, etc. Adding drama by processing is what some choose to do. However, the content is not changed, just the mood.

A well known instance of just changing the mood of a photo:

Very much agreed, many tools to add drama alright, and not just the ones utilised in the previously mentioned images. I wouldn't necessarily hold up content as the sole arbiter of integrity in an image though. Don't want to get too off-topic by focussing on that though.

 

[-doomed-]

The originals looked better to my eye. Too much PP for my taste.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Just to add my 2c to the conversation. I sometimes was speaking to a relatively well-known war photographer (yep, technically I live in a country which is fighting a war and I come in contact with such guys first hand) and he claimed that in his opinion PP or not is not a problem till your photographs are the only documents of something happening (e.g. atrocity from the established power toward the civil population). In this case he claimed that he still believes film as being more difficult to duplicate and manipulate should be still used as the main tool to register "proofs".

GLF