I'm an old man, so my photography goes back to the days of a real darkroom with an enlarger and chemicals in trays.
From the beginning, the real joy of photography has always been in the darkroom. When you press the shutter, it's all over in 1/60th of a second (or less). But in the darkroom -- I could spend days with an image.
Days. That's where the real joy was.
The camera hardly ever sees the image the same way we do. Fine-art photography is all about FEELINGS and if you want to communicate your feelings to the user, you're gonna hafta shoot in RAW and post-process.
Otherwise, you'll have damn few photos to share.
I have a certain standard workflow I use for pretty much every image. After that, there are certain things I will do to images that are special.
That isn't cheating: it's bringing the camera to see the same thing(s) I saw when I took the shot.
Thank you very much for your comments Ken. It's good to hear from someone who is more familiar with film and the original way of processing images than I am.
I completely agree with your comment that fine art photography is all about feelings and to communicate these you have to shoot in RAW and post process. It wasn't until I understood this that my images really began to improve.
With respect to black and white, my philosophy is to never do an edit that couldn’t (theoretically) be achieved in the darkroom. Color’s a whole different story: do what’s necessary to achieve your artistic intent.
Thank you very much for your comments. I don't do much black and white photography but I can understand your philosophy and it was interesting to hear your approach.
Great post Gill - I think post processing is integral to an image not only conveying the sense of place of a scene but also it forms part of a photographers style, making the image unique to that photographer.
I can so relate to that: “My intention with post processing is never to deceive the viewer but to convey what I saw and felt in the field. In the case of this shot it was the beauty of the misty river, the peace and tranquility of the location and the joy at being the only one out there.” That is an essential part of my photography.
So well said Gill. Post-processing can be a tricky issue, both to talk about and in practice.
I think post-processing is the hardest part of creating memorable images, partly because it is so easy to over do it and because there are so many ways to visualise and achieve a particular result. A great photo is one where you don't even see the editing (but it is always there because the lens doesn't see what we see)
Thank you very much for your comments James and I agree with your definition of a great photo regarding editing. Like all creative pursuits it comes down to personal choice and what we want to say with our images.
Brilliant piece, Gill. I, too, as an enthusiast, do my share of editing. But since my knowledge of the tools available are limited, I tend to stick to exposure and contrast corrections (I like to use curves, whenever available) and minor adjustments to light and color. Mostly I use the Canon software which is good enough for my needs and it also converts RAW files, but sometimes Pixlr helps me with minor editing.
I tend to prefer my photos as close to how they came out of the camera as possible.
I relate to your difficulties in getting beyond Jpeg output. I do wonder, in hindsight if we were all fooled by the transparency era, Kodachrome in particular, where the deep saturated colours of perfect exposure were the order of the day, so we all took time to get beyond that, and realise that the flat and terribly uninspiring output typical of a RAW file has lots more potential - if you have the skill to exploit it.
I remember watching a Webinar from Digital Transitions in Atlanta where National Geographic were have horrible problems scanning and colour matching / correcting their iconic transparencies into digital format.
I also recall seeing an Ansel Adams exhibition at the National Maritime Museum where a lot of his originals were on show - not very inspiring I must say. But the darkroom processing and the printing / publishing thereafter have produced the legendary images we are all familiar with.
Sadly as Adams himself said 50% of the impact come from the darkroom (post processing in todays world) - but that is art, not press photography where the rules are different - cropping is about it in terms of what is allowable in that world.
Finally back to the present, did the the edits of the famous "Kate picture" detract form the message? I doubt it. The fact that the agencies all missed it,, is more telling than the edits in the first place. The camera. settings of 1/125sec, f3.5 Aperature, 50mm lens, ISO 640 and close distance to the subjects explain a lot of the movement / blur /f ocus issues on the basis of physics alone. As one commentator said, it was slow news day.
Thank you very much for your comments William. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on processing and agree with Ansel Adams that 50% of an images impact comes from the processing. If we don't process and just shoot in jpeg we are squandering so much creative potential.
Later on a Monday than usual reading your post, as normality got in the way today.
I found your post as usual well planned, delightfully written and you views concisely explained.
I viewed a number of videos over the weekend, mainly on street photography, where one vlogger said that if he got it right in camera he trusted his camera to reproduce that and just shot jpegs!
It seems to me that if you just want to take photographs shoot jpegs, much like shooting film in the old days and waiting for the results to come back from Boots or Trueprint (other developers were available!). But if you want to create images, shoot in RAW and post process. Ken's comments brought back memories of developing film and the fun of being in the darkroom, creating images, good, bad and indifferent!
I must admit the modern darkroom (lightroom) offers far more than we had back then, and we are lead sometimes to try and achieve results that others adopt!
You are so right to reiterate that each should present their work as they want it to be!
Gill, a great post, I guess the subject of post processing will be discussed forever.
Thank you very much for your comments Chris, I am glad you enjoyed the post.
I love your comment 'if you want to take photographs shoot jpegs, but if you want to create images, shoot in RAW and post process'. I think that sums it up much better than I did. Processing puts the mood and feeling into the image and, in my opinion, turns it from a photo into a piece of art.
My Dad developed all his images in our bathroom....it was also his darkroom. I remember seeing his photos pegged up drying over the bath! It was magical watching the images emerge from the chemical baths and importantly - that was where he did his editing. Just because editing has become digital doesn't make it "cheating". My Dad never went digital - he felt that skills were lost and that actually, digital was "cheating" - we never saw eye to eye on that! Currently, I'm about where you were back in 2012 on editing in LR... but I'm loving the learning journey. Great blog! Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments Jayne. It is lovely to hear about your Dad and his multi purpose darkroom and good to know that his love of photography has passed on to you.
I am glad you are enjoying the Lightroom journey. I have found it is something that evolves and grows over time and there is always something new to learn and refine. It's all good fun though 🙂
Your soft & subtle work is such a breath of fresh air from the many over processed and "shouty" (your word!) landscapes that we see! I am learning SO much from reading these blogs...thanks!
I'm in full agreement with your views on post processing. The RAW file is the starting point; by use of the various tools I think as photographers we aim to convey the spirit of what we saw at the moment the shutter button was pressed to the viewer.
I have no problem with images that move towards digital art as long as they are not intended to deceive
It was interesting to see how your processing has evolved. In fact it would be highly surprising if it hadn't as our imagery evolves over the years. I think it is akin to would you decorate your living room in the same way now as you did 10 years ago !
I'm really enjoying your blogs and look forward to the weekly notifications
Thank you very much for your comments Andrew - its good to know that you are enjoying the blogs.
You are right I definitely wouldn't decorate my house in the same way that I did 10 years ago!
I found it a really interesting exercise to re edit some of my old images, it made me realise how much my processing had changed - particularly my approach and thought process.
Interesting and useful read thanks Gill. When you think that a pdf is created from a raw file by the camera itself (as I understand it), I think this more than justifies manipulating the raw file “manually” in post. My preference is also to reflect what my eyes have seen as far as possible. I’ll definitely be trying negative dehaze and clarity adjustments where appropriate.
I agree with Erik, I have the same understanding of RAW files which is born out by what many of them look like when first imported into Lightroom. Also there are a number of techniques that are definitely not cheating but trying to bridge the gap between what the eye can see and what the camera can capture such as exposure bracketing, focus stacking, panoramas and you obviously need to edit those to create the photo you are aiming for. I enjoy the editing process but sometimes find I have spent a lot of time on an image that does not really merit it. I struggle sometimes with deciding what is the correct white balance and I think I sometimes under edit because I am so conscious of the need to avoid taking it too far
Thank you very much for your comments Sarah. I too sometimes spend too long on images that don't merit the time. Generally if the shot isn't working after about 10 mins I will move on - and usually these are the shots that have compromised compositions or some other element that isn't quite right. No amount of editing will make a bad shot good.
Thanks for sharing your process. I feel that we have a very similar philosophy and approach. I use Photoshop for focus stacking or exposure blending when I have to, but otherwise I greatly prefer Lightroom.
I could be wrong, but I learned that processing RAW files is a necessary step. Digital photography is about capturing as much data about the scene as possible in the RAW file. The resulting image is therefore very flat, expressing all the data all at once. With processing we then adjust the data to match what we saw or felt at the time.
I feel like if something is ADDED to a scene and wasn't actually there, with sky replacement, AI, etc, then there is some level of dishonesty, unless it is presented as a non-realistic creation.
Thank you very much for your comments Erik. You are absolutely right, processing is a necessary step when working with RAW files. My post was inspired by comments that I sometimes hear from clients who have no interest in processing and would rather capture 'everything in camera' - except I think they fail to understand that Jpegs are really processed images created by an algorithm in the camera instead of the photographer in Lightroom.
It's good to hear others opinions on the subject, so thank you for commenting.
Thanks for sharing your process, Gill. I was nodding in agreement all the way through.
Thank you very much for reading Lynn and for your comments. 🙂
There's a lot to digest in this post.
I'm an old man, so my photography goes back to the days of a real darkroom with an enlarger and chemicals in trays.
From the beginning, the real joy of photography has always been in the darkroom. When you press the shutter, it's all over in 1/60th of a second (or less). But in the darkroom -- I could spend days with an image.
Days. That's where the real joy was.
The camera hardly ever sees the image the same way we do. Fine-art photography is all about FEELINGS and if you want to communicate your feelings to the user, you're gonna hafta shoot in RAW and post-process.
Otherwise, you'll have damn few photos to share.
I have a certain standard workflow I use for pretty much every image. After that, there are certain things I will do to images that are special.
That isn't cheating: it's bringing the camera to see the same thing(s) I saw when I took the shot.
Thank you very much for your comments Ken. It's good to hear from someone who is more familiar with film and the original way of processing images than I am.
I completely agree with your comment that fine art photography is all about feelings and to communicate these you have to shoot in RAW and post process. It wasn't until I understood this that my images really began to improve.
With respect to black and white, my philosophy is to never do an edit that couldn’t (theoretically) be achieved in the darkroom. Color’s a whole different story: do what’s necessary to achieve your artistic intent.
Thank you very much for your comments. I don't do much black and white photography but I can understand your philosophy and it was interesting to hear your approach.
Great post Gill - I think post processing is integral to an image not only conveying the sense of place of a scene but also it forms part of a photographers style, making the image unique to that photographer.
Thank you so much Lin, and I agree. Post processing definitely pays a big part in how a photographers style develops and evolves.
I can so relate to that: “My intention with post processing is never to deceive the viewer but to convey what I saw and felt in the field. In the case of this shot it was the beauty of the misty river, the peace and tranquility of the location and the joy at being the only one out there.” That is an essential part of my photography.
Excellent read, Gill! Thank you!
Thank you Susanne, I am glad you enjoyed it. 🙂
So well said Gill. Post-processing can be a tricky issue, both to talk about and in practice.
I think post-processing is the hardest part of creating memorable images, partly because it is so easy to over do it and because there are so many ways to visualise and achieve a particular result. A great photo is one where you don't even see the editing (but it is always there because the lens doesn't see what we see)
Thank you very much for your comments James and I agree with your definition of a great photo regarding editing. Like all creative pursuits it comes down to personal choice and what we want to say with our images.
Thanks for reading 🙂
Brilliant piece, Gill. I, too, as an enthusiast, do my share of editing. But since my knowledge of the tools available are limited, I tend to stick to exposure and contrast corrections (I like to use curves, whenever available) and minor adjustments to light and color. Mostly I use the Canon software which is good enough for my needs and it also converts RAW files, but sometimes Pixlr helps me with minor editing.
I tend to prefer my photos as close to how they came out of the camera as possible.
Cheers from Brazil.
Thank you very much for you comments Ton. Its good to hear your views all the way from Brazil.
It sounds like you know what you are looking to achieve with your editing which is usually half the battle. 🙂
Intriguing and insightful thank you Gill, it's something I should maybe move away from mobilliy and try on a full screen.
Definitely Ian. Thank you very much for reading and commenting and I am glad you found it interesting. 🙂
Interesting.
I relate to your difficulties in getting beyond Jpeg output. I do wonder, in hindsight if we were all fooled by the transparency era, Kodachrome in particular, where the deep saturated colours of perfect exposure were the order of the day, so we all took time to get beyond that, and realise that the flat and terribly uninspiring output typical of a RAW file has lots more potential - if you have the skill to exploit it.
I remember watching a Webinar from Digital Transitions in Atlanta where National Geographic were have horrible problems scanning and colour matching / correcting their iconic transparencies into digital format.
I also recall seeing an Ansel Adams exhibition at the National Maritime Museum where a lot of his originals were on show - not very inspiring I must say. But the darkroom processing and the printing / publishing thereafter have produced the legendary images we are all familiar with.
Sadly as Adams himself said 50% of the impact come from the darkroom (post processing in todays world) - but that is art, not press photography where the rules are different - cropping is about it in terms of what is allowable in that world.
Finally back to the present, did the the edits of the famous "Kate picture" detract form the message? I doubt it. The fact that the agencies all missed it,, is more telling than the edits in the first place. The camera. settings of 1/125sec, f3.5 Aperature, 50mm lens, ISO 640 and close distance to the subjects explain a lot of the movement / blur /f ocus issues on the basis of physics alone. As one commentator said, it was slow news day.
Thank you very much for your comments William. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on processing and agree with Ansel Adams that 50% of an images impact comes from the processing. If we don't process and just shoot in jpeg we are squandering so much creative potential.
Later on a Monday than usual reading your post, as normality got in the way today.
I found your post as usual well planned, delightfully written and you views concisely explained.
I viewed a number of videos over the weekend, mainly on street photography, where one vlogger said that if he got it right in camera he trusted his camera to reproduce that and just shot jpegs!
It seems to me that if you just want to take photographs shoot jpegs, much like shooting film in the old days and waiting for the results to come back from Boots or Trueprint (other developers were available!). But if you want to create images, shoot in RAW and post process. Ken's comments brought back memories of developing film and the fun of being in the darkroom, creating images, good, bad and indifferent!
I must admit the modern darkroom (lightroom) offers far more than we had back then, and we are lead sometimes to try and achieve results that others adopt!
You are so right to reiterate that each should present their work as they want it to be!
Gill, a great post, I guess the subject of post processing will be discussed forever.
Thank you very much for your comments Chris, I am glad you enjoyed the post.
I love your comment 'if you want to take photographs shoot jpegs, but if you want to create images, shoot in RAW and post process'. I think that sums it up much better than I did. Processing puts the mood and feeling into the image and, in my opinion, turns it from a photo into a piece of art.
My Dad developed all his images in our bathroom....it was also his darkroom. I remember seeing his photos pegged up drying over the bath! It was magical watching the images emerge from the chemical baths and importantly - that was where he did his editing. Just because editing has become digital doesn't make it "cheating". My Dad never went digital - he felt that skills were lost and that actually, digital was "cheating" - we never saw eye to eye on that! Currently, I'm about where you were back in 2012 on editing in LR... but I'm loving the learning journey. Great blog! Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments Jayne. It is lovely to hear about your Dad and his multi purpose darkroom and good to know that his love of photography has passed on to you.
I am glad you are enjoying the Lightroom journey. I have found it is something that evolves and grows over time and there is always something new to learn and refine. It's all good fun though 🙂
Your soft & subtle work is such a breath of fresh air from the many over processed and "shouty" (your word!) landscapes that we see! I am learning SO much from reading these blogs...thanks!
Thank you so much Sue for your kind comments. I am glad you are enjoying the blogs and finding them useful.
I'm in full agreement with your views on post processing. The RAW file is the starting point; by use of the various tools I think as photographers we aim to convey the spirit of what we saw at the moment the shutter button was pressed to the viewer.
I have no problem with images that move towards digital art as long as they are not intended to deceive
It was interesting to see how your processing has evolved. In fact it would be highly surprising if it hadn't as our imagery evolves over the years. I think it is akin to would you decorate your living room in the same way now as you did 10 years ago !
I'm really enjoying your blogs and look forward to the weekly notifications
Thank you very much for your comments Andrew - its good to know that you are enjoying the blogs.
You are right I definitely wouldn't decorate my house in the same way that I did 10 years ago!
I found it a really interesting exercise to re edit some of my old images, it made me realise how much my processing had changed - particularly my approach and thought process.
Interesting and useful read thanks Gill. When you think that a pdf is created from a raw file by the camera itself (as I understand it), I think this more than justifies manipulating the raw file “manually” in post. My preference is also to reflect what my eyes have seen as far as possible. I’ll definitely be trying negative dehaze and clarity adjustments where appropriate.
Thank you very much for your comments David, I am glad you enjoyed the blog and found something useful to take away from it.
I agree with Erik, I have the same understanding of RAW files which is born out by what many of them look like when first imported into Lightroom. Also there are a number of techniques that are definitely not cheating but trying to bridge the gap between what the eye can see and what the camera can capture such as exposure bracketing, focus stacking, panoramas and you obviously need to edit those to create the photo you are aiming for. I enjoy the editing process but sometimes find I have spent a lot of time on an image that does not really merit it. I struggle sometimes with deciding what is the correct white balance and I think I sometimes under edit because I am so conscious of the need to avoid taking it too far
Thank you very much for your comments Sarah. I too sometimes spend too long on images that don't merit the time. Generally if the shot isn't working after about 10 mins I will move on - and usually these are the shots that have compromised compositions or some other element that isn't quite right. No amount of editing will make a bad shot good.
Thanks for sharing your process. I feel that we have a very similar philosophy and approach. I use Photoshop for focus stacking or exposure blending when I have to, but otherwise I greatly prefer Lightroom.
I could be wrong, but I learned that processing RAW files is a necessary step. Digital photography is about capturing as much data about the scene as possible in the RAW file. The resulting image is therefore very flat, expressing all the data all at once. With processing we then adjust the data to match what we saw or felt at the time.
I feel like if something is ADDED to a scene and wasn't actually there, with sky replacement, AI, etc, then there is some level of dishonesty, unless it is presented as a non-realistic creation.
Thank you very much for your comments Erik. You are absolutely right, processing is a necessary step when working with RAW files. My post was inspired by comments that I sometimes hear from clients who have no interest in processing and would rather capture 'everything in camera' - except I think they fail to understand that Jpegs are really processed images created by an algorithm in the camera instead of the photographer in Lightroom.
It's good to hear others opinions on the subject, so thank you for commenting.