The work that happens before you push the button.

[tunalegs]

Tangenting off of a remark in another thread.

I have a feeling that in this photoshop era of photography, more photographers are paying less attention to the work that can be done to make a photo interesting before one even touches the shutter button. Because it has become common to think about how one can make a photo interesting after it is taken. In camera effects, and old school tricks are basically unknown. Clever shots and novel approaches don't even enter the photographer's mind, because they're thinking that they can jazz it up later in photoshop.

I think even if that photographer doesn't use photoshop, doing the planning and the legwork to produce a photo has become decidedly unfashionable. Even the old street photographers didn't run around hoping to magically catch some interesting moment, they found a good location and waited for the right moment to come along. Sure Ansel Adams did a lot of work with his prints in the darkroom, but he also looked for locations and came back for the most interesting light to make his photos.

Do modern photographers not pay enough attention to what they could be doing to make a photograph interesting before they click the shutter? It seems a lot of folks think they can surreptitiously and spontaneously take a great photo - and if it's not what they wanted - they can play around with it in photoshop until it approximates what they wanted.

Not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with photoshop or using it, just that the mindset of doing all the work after the photo seems to be the current fad.

Thoughts?

Edit: some people seem to be reading into this as some sort of complaint against digital manipulation, which it is not. It is rather commenting on how it seems photographers "see" their images in an age of convenient digital processing.

 

[68degrees]

IMO there is nothing wrong with taking a photo and using it as a rough sketch for a digital painting as long as when its done it is identified as fiction just as books are categorized as fiction or non fiction so the reader or in this case, the viewer knows. If someone writes a book of fiction and passes it off as a true story, I object to that. If a writer deliberately does not indicate if it is true story or fiction and lets the reader decide as part of the intrigue of the book I suppose that would be alright as long as it is stated that it is deliberately no being specified.

 

[dct]

I agree to most of the saying of the thread opener. I'm aware that even with film (after scanning) I can play the same game as you mention, hoping for PP enhancements. But this additional simpler functionality nowadays is a far cry from saying that you don't have to pay attention at your environment, light, people, weather. And if it doesn't fit, you have to come back another time (if at all possible).

A good example for my own work is photographing sundials. First you have to find one you haven't shoot before (not very easy!). Then you need the correct daylight (sun), the correct season (sun too low, too high, too much foliage...) and the right time. Maybe also the right weekday if it is inside a mansion, church, castle or other property not always open to public.
For all of this PP is no good. Finding the right point is very demanding.

What I would like to emphasize: Whatever you photograph if not just snap shots, which I also do, has to be planned carefully including all the variables. Or do you really think there are "modern" photographers relying mostly on PP?

 

[daveleo]

This, to me personally, is a very tough scrambled bunch of feelings, and I am glad that someone put the topic on the table.

It will be wonderful if it is not attacked as "I am right, you are wrong" . . "My opinion is better than yours" . . . etc . . .etc . .

 

[tunalegs]

To be clear, I'm not talking about people using photoshop as a crutch - but rather that in the ubiquitous presence of photoshop and other like programs, photographers aren't using/thinking of alternatives. So there is a tendency to do more work after the photo is taken, than a careful consideration of what can be done before or even during the exposure.

 

[FrankS]

I did some product photography for an artisan furniture maker once. I was setting up a shot of a table (backdrop, lights) and he remarked that he was surprised at how long the photography was taking. I replied that the photography only takes 1/60 second, it's the prep work that was time consuming. Just like house painting.

 

[68degrees]

... the photography only takes 1/60 second, it's the prep work that was time consuming..

love it +1 for Frank

 

[rkm]

If I use sound recording as an analogy...

It can be tempting as a sound engineer to think that you can "fix it in the mix". Technology is powerful, and you can really transform a musical performance: change the tone; fix the timing; make it in tune etc. There are times that you have to, to make the music presentable when the talent simply isn't good enough (although you could argue this just perpetuates an illusion that shouldn't be perpetuated).

The ideal is to have talent worth recording, to capture an inspiring performance from the talent, and to have chosen the right tools in the signal chain to represent them sympathetically. Any post production then becomes about creative choices rather than trying to fix something. There's a saying, "you can't polish a turd (but you can roll it in glitter)".

 

[rkm]

Further to my previous comment, there is a pressure because of the power of technology, to represent things as perfect... to fix things, simply because we can (especially if we are acting as paid professionals). However, I think there is a different kind of perfect to strive for, that allows for humanity.

 

[back alley]

my attitude hasn't really changed all that much with moving from a wet darkroom to a digital darkroom.
i still like to crop a bit, increase contrast, maybe try to add a little drama...

the digital darkroom is 'easier' but mostly because there is so little set up/tear down time needed.

 

[steveniphoto]

considering i shoot mostly film A LOT of consideration goes in before snapping away. the majority of my cameras dont have meters so worrying about exposure, composition, content, etc is still there. of course you can do basic adjustments in PS or in darkroom but i mean you can spray a turd gold but in the end its still a turd.

i agree with OP though that photographers no longer work scenes like they used to. like when elliot erwitt shot a whole roll of Tri-X for the bulldog shot you dont see that kind of patience with some photographers now mostly because digital makes everything faster imo.

 

[Richard G]

But we haven't gone backwards because of this capacity to post process, which is of course not new. The photographs we notice here and in the past nearly all had this preparation you speak of. To see and know what would make a worthwhile photograph is the first step that is often left out. My family are sometimes surprised at where I don't take a camera. I had the frustration yesterday of traveling along one of the most beautiful stretches of coast, admittedly a difficult road by car, with only certain options to stop, and in half an hour I could only find one half way decent photograph to take.

Apropos of Frank's comment and his commission, I was reading that good product photography really requires a tilt shift facility. That would surprise a lot of photographers.

 

[pgk]

Personally speaking I take as much care as I can before and when taking a photograph. But adding in post processing possibilities can improve images more. I try to visualise and pre-determine what will be possible in post before I take some images. Care before and after taking an image are simply a part of the same process.

If the question is "do many photographers do this?" then I'd say some at least do, and they are the photographers who have taken on board the possibilities of digital in all its aspects. Many though do not, and will then 'play' with post processing to salvage/enhance an image in ways that they did not pre-consider. Sometimes this works, but often it simply makes a unremarkable image somewhat more more presentable IMHO.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For years my rule of thumb has been that one minute extra before you press the button saves two to ten minutes in post production. But equally, of course, there are things that are quicker or cheaper to fix in post than beforehand: I don't change seamless transilluminated (Kodatrace) backgrounds anything like as often as I used to, because 'heal' is quicker.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Apropos of Frank's comment and his commission, I was reading that good product photography really requires a tilt shift facility. That would surprise a lot of photographers.

Used to. Doesn't any more. Well, only in VERY unusual circumstances (holding a receding plane in focus). This is where I started my professional career, and really, I can do pretty much anything with fixed-lens (no movement) small- or medium-format digital that I could do with LF.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nealt]

If someone told me, Oh no you can't scan those negs. I wouldn't feel stifled at all by that.
Everything I do in post on the computer I can and do in the darkroom.

most of the important work happens even before I even pull my camera out. things like knowing the light and thinking about the scene and composition come into play even when I don't have a camera on me.

There is a difference between looking and seeing. As passionate photographers we photograph the world through our eyes without ever having lifted a hand.

It's both a blessing and a curse.

 

[hepcat]

Used to. Doesn't any more. Well, only in VERY unusual circumstances (holding a receding plane in focus). This is where I started my professional career, and really, I can do pretty much anything with fixed-lens (no movement) small- or medium-format digital that I could do with LF.

Cheers,

R.

If you couldn't tilt the lens board and film plane, you tilted the easel printing. It wasn't as accurate, but it got the job done.

 

[thegman]

Well, I find that if I don't think too much about where/when I take photos, they tend to be crap. The photos that I plan a little, turn out much better. When I say "plan" I just mean I've walked past a scene, and think "That's cool", then I come back when I have a camera on me, or when I have more time. Or sometimes I'll come back when I know the streets will be quieter, as I tend not to want people in my photos.

I certainly much prefer the idea of getting somewhere at the right time in the right circumstances, and take the photo knowing I've got what I wanted.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you couldn't tilt the lens board and film plane, you tilted the easel printing. It wasn't as accurate, but it got the job done.

You can get around the rise/fall problem that way -- many enlargers also have a tilting neg stage, so you can meet the Scheimpflug condition while enlarging -- but it doesn't get around receding planes, for which you need swings and tilts on large formats. On smaller format, DoF normally suffices.

Not sure what you mean by 'accurate'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

To be clear, I'm not talking about people using photoshop as a crutch - but rather that in the ubiquitous presence of photoshop and other like programs, photographers aren't using/thinking of alternatives. So there is a tendency to do more work after the photo is taken, than a careful consideration of what can be done before or even during the exposure.

This is an interesting and insightful discussion. I think that the digital age has brought a new and unprecedented level of "uninvolved" people to photography. We haven't seen anything like it since the introduction of the Kodak Instamatic 104. The same kind of people, rather than buying a fixed aperture and fixed shutter speed snapshot box are now buying higher-end very sophisticated computers with lenses to do exactly the same kind of cookie-cutter "photography" that was done way back when with Instamatics.

The only difference is that because they spent so much for the box, they expect higher-quality output. And just because the box is now capable of manual control doesn't mean that they're ever used that way. When an image is oof, it's the fault of the camera's auto focus now. Missing exposure is the fault of the 99 spot "smart" meter. Blown highlights and murky shadows are the norm. Basically, the technology now shields the unwashed masses from ever realizing the need to learn the fundamentals of light, or even composition. It disposes with the need to learn the disciplines essential to "making" an image (with, in my thought is very different from "taking" an image.)

Using post-processing software to "fix" what a photographer either doesn't know how to do or hasn't the discipline to do is derigueur in the digital world.

Don't misunderstand, I love PS and LR. They're amazing tools, and I use them regularly not only to crop and adjust color balance and exposure to exactly where I want it, but I'm not above removing power lines and other distracting elements that I couldn't remove when I make an image. But I don't really use those tools any differently than I'd have used airbrushing, or tricks in printing to dodge or burn.

Canon brought us to the era of "Shoot Like a Pro" with their advertising campaign for the Rebel cameras some time ago... all you need to "shoot like a pro" is this camera or that lens... perfecting your trade-craft isn't neccesary. And millions have bought it.