The work that happens before you push the button.

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Exactly. And as we do say in Cornwall, 'bigger fools they'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

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.

It was much easier (at least for me) to get "accurate" framing and "perfect" verticals etc. under a dark cloth viewing a ground glass than it was trying to do it in the darkroom with the enlarger. I don't remember if our old 4x5 Omega enlargers had a tilting negative stage now, but we had an 8x10 enlarger with 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5 carriers that I remember had the tilting negative stage as well... it was MUCH easier to make those corrections before the exposure than doing it in the darkroom.

I just realized what I dinosaur I really am. Geez...

 

[daveleo]

For me, it's a mixed bag, regarding when my work happens.

Sometimes (as it is right now) I struggle for days (or weeks !) about how to photograph some item (at the moment, it's some stuff I bought at a flea market). So in that case most of the work happens before I even decide what camera & lens I am going to use.

But sometimes, I backtrack and "try to make art" 🙄 from a picture I made some time ago (usually a snapshot that has good composition). In that case, it's all computer post-processing (sometimes it works, most times it doesn't ! )

 

[jsrockit]

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 you are looking at the wrong photography then. People have always tried to jazz up mediorce images in the wet darkroom too. Polishing a turd has always been something people try.

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.

One way of working is not superior to another... one should do whatever works for them and their work. The fact is it is hard to be great in photography. You can look at the already established past and see the greatness. With modern photography, you do not have that luxury yet. Time will show that we have great photographers in this era too.

Do modern photographers not pay enough attention to what they could be doing to make a photograph interesting before they click the shutter?

Who are all of these photographers you are lumping together?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It was much easier (at least for me) to get "accurate" framing and "perfect" verticals etc. under a dark cloth viewing a ground glass than it was trying to do it in the darkroom with the enlarger. I don't remember if our old 4x5 Omega enlargers had a tilting negative stage now, but we had an 8x10 enlarger with 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5 carriers that I remember had the tilting negative stage as well... it was MUCH easier to make those corrections before the exposure than doing it in the darkroom.

I just realized what I dinosaur I really am. Geez...

Absolutely. Hence my comment in an earlier post, "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."

Sorry for the misunderstanding: my stupìdity. I was thinking of the ease with which you can 'correct' converging verticals in a computer -- not with an enlarger, where you are of course absolutely right. I plead a filthy cold, plus enthusiastic (and efficacious) treatment with whisky, for the conflation.

Cheers,

R.

 

[shadowfox]

Back when I have to fix something in Photoshop, I was irritated. Tools like darktable or Lightroom, with custom and user-defined presets made it easier to get the images that I like. Still, that doesn't make me love the process. To put it bluntly, digital post-processing is a chore for me.

But when I have to tinker (sometimes 'fight') with a negative to get the print that I like in the darkroom, I really enjoy it. Especially when the print retains the tonality the next morning after it dried up.

 

[tunalegs]

I think you are looking at the wrong photography then. People have always tried to jazz up mediorce images in the wet darkroom too. Polishing a turd has always been something people try.

You're misunderstanding the post. I was not trying to suggest that bad photographers take bad photos, and then try to make them good after the fact. I was positing that because of the ease and ubiquity of digital manipulation photographers aren't "seeing" their photos before they click the shutter.

I bring it up because of comments in another thread where a couple posters mistook some novel compositions and double exposures for photoshop manipulation. We're all pretty well acquainted with digital manipulation so we don't even think about whether those sort of shots could be pulled off through staging or in camera tricks.

 

[jsrockit]

You're misunderstanding the post. I was not trying to suggest that bad photographers take bad photos, and then try to make them good after the fact. I was positing that because of the ease and ubiquity of digital manipulation photographers aren't "seeing" their photos before they click the shutter.

I didn't misunderstand. I would agree that the mainstreamification of digital manipulation software allows for a lot more people to do what used to be hard, easily... and the internet allows us to see more bad photography. However, there are PLENTY of great photographers these days and they are seeing their subject before making the photo. I guess my point of contention is that I don't think good photographers are doing this and that is why I said you are looking at the wrong photography. I mean, even the novelty bokeh freaks are thinking inside the camera and not in post. I'll stand by my initial thought ... people have been trying to polish turds forever.

 

[tunalegs]

I never said there was anything wrong with digital manipulation though. Just that it has caused photographers to see and think differently.

 

[DNG]

I have been around photography for a long time. I only had a film Camera and Darkroom when I started my interest in 1968.
The Darkroom couldn't really "Save" a bad frame exposure wise. But, a good exposure always needed a little attention. A contrast boost, a dodge here, or a burn there. Just the nature of film. IT CAN'T RECORD the same DR our eyes can.. it is much shorter!
So, Getting it "Right" in-camera is subjective IMO. You can get it "Close" and take it to your digital darkroom and tweak it further.
And the goal is to get it close!

Digital is worse... (well, if yours can get a 12EV+ DR at ISO 200-1600.. that's better)

Your pre-exposure calculation is an important part of the image your vision as the end game image. What Shutter Speed, f/stop, Lens, Film or ISO, Where and how to meter... are all things to adjust to get it close to your vision. Your Framing just before the plunger is pressed.

I am a purest I guess, I don't like to tweak past the point of reality.
But, try to tweak the image to best represent what I saw, or envisioned. I will use the availible tools PS has, including layers (rare though) to best edit the file to a well presentable photograph, as I would in a Wet Darkroom, (albeit, with better tools with PS)

I don't think I have ever seen an OOC photo that was presentable. They all needed at least more contrast and sharpening, and more saturation. It ain't like Kodachrome that has all that Out-of-the-Box. Although many want that convenience with Digital.

Pre-exposure thinking is your most impotent step, always was, always will be.

 

[DNG]

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.

Ummm. but, shifting the lens will cause the Plane of Focus to shift, so that NEW plane is in focus.. tilting the paper can't change the plane of focus that is burned in on the film. It can change the plane of focus on the enlargement. But, if the FILM has the wrong plane Out-of-Focus, No amount of Paper tilting can change that.

 

[Godfrey]

...Who are all of these photographers you are lumping together?

You caught my first reaction on reading the initial post. Who am I to judge what other people like to do with their photography? I may not like their photos, I might have recommendations as to how they might improve their work, but what they do is really their own business and if they're getting the results they want, bravo to them. It doesn't affect what I do unless I see something that I like and look to try it out.

I use digital image processing to render every photo I make, and have been doing so for more than the past decade. The result has been better photos. I put a lot of effort up front to previsualize what I'm going for, and I put a lot of effort into postvisualization too. Image processing gives us that capability in ways that were impossible with wet lab processing. I don't use much in way of effects or gimmicks, I do look to make the photograph I see in my minds eye.

What other people do is up to them. I enjoy looking at their photos to see if they appeal to me, and enjoy discussing/editing their work if they choose to ask me to do so.

G

 

[tunalegs]

So you would not say that photographers today in general, tend to use photoshop and like programs to accomplish effects that can be obtained by other means either through staging or in-camera tricks? Therefore a photographer today does not think any differently in terms of composition, camera handling, previsualization, etc. than a photographer one or more decades ago? The approach and mindset in general remains the same?

 

[Godfrey]

So you would not say that photographers today in general, tend to use photoshop and like programs to accomplish effects that can be obtained by other means either through staging or in-camera tricks? Therefore a photographer today does not think any differently in terms of composition, camera handling, previsualization, etc. than a photographer one or more decades ago? The approach and mindset in general remains the same?

I would not say any such things. How and what a photographer does depends on the individual photographer. I see neither reason nor point to making such sweeping generalizations.

Certainly, there is much more post-visualization and image manipulation being done today, because it is possible and accessible to do much more post-visualization and image manipulation than in any prior time in photography. And because there are orders of magnitude more people involved with and doing photography today than at any prior time in history. But that doesn't mean that "photographers today in general" do either of those things.

G

 

[tunalegs]

Certainly, there is much more post-visualization and image manipulation being done today, because it is possible and accessible to do much more post-visualization and image manipulation than in any prior time in photography. And because there are orders of magnitude more people involved with and doing photography today than at any prior time in history. But that doesn't mean that "photographers today in general" do either of those things.

G

Actually doesn't it mean exactly that? One really cannot say that technology has changed the way that people make and think about making photos, but then say that doesn't mean technology has changed the way that people make and think about making photos. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

Actually doesn't it mean exactly that? One really cannot say that technology has changed the way that people make and think about making photos, but then say that doesn't mean technology has changed the way that people make and think about making photos. 🙂

To say that "photographers in general do something different" is to apply a value judgement on what photographers do, and implies a change in what a photographer does.

To say "more of something is done today than ever before" and "there are more photographers today" is to report two facts ... which does not imply any change or judgement of what a given photographer does.

Do you understand the distinction?

You edited into your original post:

.. 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.

so it seems that you are aware that your statement can be easily mis-interpreted.

Perhaps the issue that I'm being sensitive to is that the words you used implied a disparagement and a change of practices by existing photographers, swept along by new technology. Any creative photographer looks to the technology currently available to expand what they produce in pleasing ways. If this means that they adopt image processing manipulation post-visualization as a part of their workflow doesn't imply that they no longer spend time thinking about what they're shooting and working out how to shoot it best, unless they're not very good photographers.

The way you asked your question, or posed your comment, was judgmental and negatively so.

G

 

[hausen]

I agree with Godfrey. Generalisations are always fraught with danger in my mind. I have found myself drifting away from my darkroom and more towards LR/PS/Nik products. I still think my main concern before I push the shutter on any of my digital/analogue cameras is a good exposure and in a perfect world being able to represent what I saw. But I am often pleasantly surprised with improvements in PP that exceed my first impression of the scene and I am not caught up with whether it is a true representation of what I saw but more in what response it invokes. But I can't see why any enthusiast on this site cares whether people who can afford a top of the line Canikon snaps willy nilly whatever they see without to much thought on composition, camera handling etc... What gives us the right to judge anyone?

 

[DNG]

I don't think for the most part that photographers use Photoshop as a way to be lazy on the front end. Though many consumers will or might. That is those people who are not photographers, But what I call snap shooters for family purposes, And possibly hobby. But are not necessarily that concerned with learning much more, than how to plunge the shutter button.

Personally I only use Photoshop for the basics just as if I had a dark room.
But even many photographers love to extend their imagery with Photoshop And make pieces of art out of a photograph. Which is totally fine. Because it is their vision of photography not ours or mine. Photography to many is an art expression not just a record of life. And even then photography for many of us is not an expression of art but the reality of life, Not necessarily in the graphic artist area of post photographic Expression That Photoshop can Offer for the graphic artist.

Although many of our photographs on this website are very artful, but only using basic technique in post

 

[tunalegs]

To say that "photographers in general do something different" is to apply a value judgement on what photographers do, and implies a change in what a photographer does.

To say "more of something is done today than ever before" and "there are more photographers today" is to report two facts ... which does not imply any change or judgement of what a given photographer does.

Do you understand the distinction?

You are still making a judgement either way. Sorry.

You edited into your original post:

so it seems that you are aware that your statement can be easily mis-interpreted.

Since a couple of people seemed to miss the point, I thought I might have to write something in simple english to clarify. 😉

The way you asked your question, or posed your comment, was judgmental and negatively so.

G

So you judge my comment negatively? 😀

Personally I only use Photoshop for the basics just as if I had a dark room.
But even many photographers love to extend their imagery with Photoshop And make pieces of art out of a photograph. Which is totally fine. Because it is their vision of photography not ours or mine. Photography to many is an art expression not just a record of life. And even then photography for many of us is not an expression of art but the reality of life, Not necessarily in the graphic artist area of post photographic Expression That Photoshop can Offer for the graphic artist.

Well as was stated in the original post, there is nothing wrong with photoshop. This thread isn't about using photoshop, it's about changing attitudes towards process. There is certainly nothing wrong with using photoshop - really for anything - even bad HDR if that is what one really wants. The idea was simply that now that photographers can do so much to a photo after it is taken, that perhaps photographers don't spend as much time thinking about what they can do to make a photo before they take it.

 

[Godfrey]

You are still making a judgement either way. Sorry.
...
Since a couple of people seemed to miss the point, I thought I might have to write something in simple english to clarify. 😉
...
So you judge my comment negatively? 😀

I'd advise you not to make this personal.

G