Matt's "Fix it in Photoshop" challenge

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: Now you'll know some of my secrets.

It's no ansel adams or van gogh, but I completely saved the shot from disaster and made it presentable.
BEFORE

AFTER.

Tsk tsk, lost details in the light areas.

On purpose.

You know Scotty, it's a shame you didn't fully utilize the power of RAW and get all the details out. I did some editing on your original RAW file and managed to get out some interesting details:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: You know Scotty, it's a shame you didn't fully utilize the power of RAW and get all the details out. I did some editing on your original RAW file and managed to get out some interesting details:

lololol

Unicorns are the number one cause of improper exposure.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: You know Scotty, it's a shame you didn't fully utilize the power of RAW and get all the details out. I did some editing on your original RAW file and managed to get out some interesting details:

Stealthy wins the challenge!

I am frustrated with the common perception that processing is not as important as camera work. I believe this canard is mostly rooted in people being ignorant of film processing technique, while they tend to be more familiar with digital processing technique, or at least think they are. In their minds the difference between chemical and electronic methods is more important than the similarity in fundamental image management concepts that have been around for a long, long time.

The strengths and weaknesses of the gear, materials, and the skills and desires of the photographer must be assessed, and then the tools and techniques that will help the photographer best reach their goal can be chosen. It won't be the same path for everyone, even when they are using similar technology and have similar goals.

Processing is vital for all photographs. Even photographers who choose to work with standardized, machine processing (whether chemical or electronic) are well served by an understanding of what the machines are doing. What is going to be a "good exposure" for slide film and standard E6 processing is not the same as what works best when shooting neg film that's going to be hand printed, or a using a digital sensor where the exposure is going to be processed in Photoshop. Whether an exposure is correct or not is relative to the processing. They are two parts of a whole. Remove either exposure or processing and there is no photograph.

There is work that can be done in the darkroom or Photoshop that will result in better quality than if it were done in camera. For example to deal with commonly encountered dynamic range issues I could use a graduated neutral density filter on the lens, or I could burn in the sky in processing (these aren't the only options, but they are popular choices). Using the filter is very easy, but I am limited to the straight line gradient provided by the filter. What if I don't want to darken in a straight line? For instance if my horizon has mountains or buildings it may result in a better finished photograph if I can more precisely control what areas are burned in. The grad ND filter doesn't offer this level of control. For most photographers this sort of precision is only available in processing. IMO whether I burn and dodge the sky using cardboard and wire or a digital tool is insignificant compared to the importance of understanding of how and where burning and dodging could improve my photo.

There is another common perception that Photoshop is effortless and the darkroom is hard work. In the darkroom a typical print exposure time would be 15 to 45 sec. In most cases my burning and dodging has to be completed within this time limit. Because of this short window of opportunity I cannot achieve extremely precise burning and dodging. This is easily seen in many mountain landscape silver gelatin prints. Notice that the mountain tops are often burned along with the sky. That's the level of precision I am afforded in 30 sec. In Photoshop I could work on the sky all day, until the photo matches my vision of the scene when I decided to take the pic. I can invest almost unlimited time and effort achieving the level of precision required to make the photo exactly like I wanted.

Using a typical photofinishing lab I spend 30 min driving to the lab and dropping off the film, which is then processed and printed in a few minutes when it's turn comes. In the darkroom I spend 30 min mopping the floors and temping chems, and then a few minutes on the print. In Photoshop I get to spend the full 30 min working directly on the photo. All three examples used up 30 min of my time, but in one of them I spent all that time directly in the creation of the photograph.

On the other side of the coin in the darkroom I can spend a couple of days making and using an unsharp mask. In Photoshop it takes a few seconds. People may be more impressed with my effort in making the film mask, but the effect on the finished photos is the same (actually it's not, because I give up and accept the film mask even if it's not quite right after a couple of tries, while in Photoshop achieving perfection only takes a smidge more concentration). Because it's so time consuming very few of my film photographs ever got unsharp masking. I saved it for a few special photos every year. Because it's so easy all of my digital photographs can get unsharp masking. Even snap shots. Does it make them more than snaps? Nope, but they are nicer looking snaps than they were before.

Blaming Photoshop and/or digital photography for a lack of skill or taste or restraint in the photographer is no different than blaming film for all the lousy photos that have been taken using that technology. Both technologies make photography easy enough that anyone who is interested in learning it should be able to do so with some study and practice.

I do think digital has raised the bar on what we consider mediocre. Instant feedback is a big advantage in learning skills and technique. It also provides inspiration to keep trying and learning. I don't think people are better at photography because digital makes it easier. I think people are better at photography because digital makes it more fun. When something is a lot of fun people are more likely to become passionate about it. In the end, for all the new folks who are now into photography, truly intriguing and exciting photographs are as rare as they've ever been, because great ideas have nothing to do with gear or process.

Whew! Who's next up on the soapbox?

Some interesting essays:

www.vividlight.com/articles/103.htm
www.huntingtonwitherill.com/resources/articles_farewell.php

Henry Peach wrote: I am frustrated with the common perception that processing is not as important as camera work. I believe this canard is mostly rooted in people being ignorant of film processing technique, while they tend to be more familiar with digital processing technique, or at least think they are. In their minds the difference between chemical and electronic methods is more important than the similarity in fundamental image management concepts that have been around for a long, long time.

The strengths and weaknesses of the gear, materials, and the skills and desires of the photographer must be assessed, and then the tools and techniques that will help the photographer best reach their goal can be chosen. It won't be the same path for everyone, even when they are using similar technology and have similar goals.

Processing is vital for all photographs. Even photographers who choose to work with standardized, machine processing (whether chemical or electronic) are well served by an understanding of what the machines are doing. What is going to be a "good exposure" for slide film and standard E6 processing is not the same as what works best when shooting neg film that's going to be hand printed, or a using a digital sensor where the exposure is going to be processed in Photoshop. Whether an exposure is correct or not is relative to the processing. They are two parts of a whole. Remove either exposure or processing and there is no photograph.

There is work that can be done in the darkroom or Photoshop that will result in better quality than if it were done in camera. For example to deal with commonly encountered dynamic range issues I could use a graduated neutral density filter on the lens, or I could burn in the sky in processing (these aren't the only options, but they are popular choices). Using the filter is very easy, but I am limited to the straight line gradient provided by the filter. What if I don't want to darken in a straight line? For instance if my horizon has mountains or buildings it may result in a better finished photograph if I can more precisely control what areas are burned in. The grad ND filter doesn't offer this level of control. For most photographers this sort of precision is only available in processing. IMO whether I burn and dodge the sky using cardboard and wire or a digital tool is insignificant compared to the importance of understanding of how and where burning and dodging could improve my photo.

There is another common perception that Photoshop is effortless and the darkroom is hard work. In the darkroom a typical print exposure time would be 15 to 45 sec. In most cases my burning and dodging has to be completed within this time limit. Because of this short window of opportunity I cannot achieve extremely precise burning and dodging. This is easily seen in many mountain landscape silver gelatin prints. Notice that the mountain tops are often burned along with the sky. That's the level of precision I am afforded in 30 sec. In Photoshop I could work on the sky all day, until the photo matches my vision of the scene when I decided to take the pic. I can invest almost unlimited time and effort achieving the level of precision required to make the photo exactly like I wanted.

Using a typical photofinishing lab I spend 30 min driving to the lab and dropping off the film, which is then processed and printed in a few minutes when it's turn comes. In the darkroom I spend 30 min mopping the floors and temping chems, and then a few minutes on the print. In Photoshop I get to spend the full 30 min working directly on the photo. All three examples used up 30 min of my time, but in one of them I spent all that time directly in the creation of the photograph.

On the other side of the coin in the darkroom I can spend a couple of days making and using an unsharp mask. In Photoshop it takes a few seconds. People may be more impressed with my effort in making the film mask, but the effect on the finished photos is the same (actually it's not, because I give up and accept the film mask even if it's not quite right after a couple of tries, while in Photoshop achieving perfection only takes a smidge more concentration). Because it's so time consuming very few of my film photographs ever got unsharp masking. I saved it for a few special photos every year. Because it's so easy all of my digital photographs can get unsharp masking. Even snap shots. Does it make them more than snaps? Nope, but they are nicer looking snaps than they were before.

Blaming Photoshop and/or digital photography for a lack of skill or taste or restraint in the photographer is no different than blaming film for all the lousy photos that have been taken using that technology. Both technologies make photography easy enough that anyone who is interested in learning it should be able to do so with some study and practice.

I do think digital has raised the bar on what we consider mediocre. Instant feedback is a big advantage in learning skills and technique. It also provides inspiration to keep trying and learning. I don't think people are better at photography because digital makes it easier. I think people are better at photography because digital makes it more fun. When something is a lot of fun people are more likely to become passionate about it. In the end, for all the new folks who are now into photography, truly intriguing and exciting photographs are as rare as they've ever been, because great ideas have nothing to do with gear or process.

Whew! Who's next up on the soapbox?

Matt, that may have been the longest response in these forums that I've ever actually read from start to finish (sometimes I skim very long responses instead of reading them entirely). But yours was well worth reading. You contribute more to discussions on this site than just an opinion; you bring facts, knowledge and experience to the table. Good post, sir.

I read the whole thing as well. I just like razzling him from time to time.

Excellent thread btw.

rmeyer7 wrote: Matt, that may have been the longest response in these forums that I've ever actually read from start to finish (sometimes I skim very long responses instead of reading them entirely). But yours was well worth reading. You contribute more to discussions on this site than just an opinion; you bring facts, knowledge and experience to the table. Good post, sir.

Henry Peach wrote: I am frustrated with the common perception that processing is not as important as camera work. I believe this canard is mostly rooted in people being ignorant of film processing technique, while they tend to be more familiar with digital processing technique, or at least think they are. In their minds the difference between chemical and electronic methods is more important than the similarity in fundamental image management concepts that have been around for a long, long time.

The strengths and weaknesses of the gear, materials, and the skills and desires of the photographer must be assessed, and then the tools and techniques that will help the photographer best reach their goal can be chosen. It won't be the same path for everyone, even when they are using similar technology and have similar goals.

Processing is vital for all photographs. Even photographers who choose to work with standardized, machine processing (whether chemical or electronic) are well served by an understanding of what the machines are doing. What is going to be a "good exposure" for slide film and standard E6 processing is not the same as what works best when shooting neg film that's going to be hand printed, or a using a digital sensor where the exposure is going to be processed in Photoshop. Whether an exposure is correct or not is relative to the processing. They are two parts of a whole. Remove either exposure or processing and there is no photograph.

There is work that can be done in the darkroom or Photoshop that will result in better quality than if it were done in camera. For example to deal with commonly encountered dynamic range issues I could use a graduated neutral density filter on the lens, or I could burn in the sky in processing (these aren't the only options, but they are popular choices). Using the filter is very easy, but I am limited to the straight line gradient provided by the filter. What if I don't want to darken in a straight line? For instance if my horizon has mountains or buildings it may result in a better finished photograph if I can more precisely control what areas are burned in. The grad ND filter doesn't offer this level of control. For most photographers this sort of precision is only available in processing. IMO whether I burn and dodge the sky using cardboard and wire or a digital tool is insignificant compared to the importance of understanding of how and where burning and dodging could improve my photo.

There is another common perception that Photoshop is effortless and the darkroom is hard work. In the darkroom a typical print exposure time would be 15 to 45 sec. In most cases my burning and dodging has to be completed within this time limit. Because of this short window of opportunity I cannot achieve extremely precise burning and dodging. This is easily seen in many mountain landscape silver gelatin prints. Notice that the mountain tops are often burned along with the sky. That's the level of precision I am afforded in 30 sec. In Photoshop I could work on the sky all day, until the photo matches my vision of the scene when I decided to take the pic. I can invest almost unlimited time and effort achieving the level of precision required to make the photo exactly like I wanted.

Using a typical photofinishing lab I spend 30 min driving to the lab and dropping off the film, which is then processed and printed in a few minutes when it's turn comes. In the darkroom I spend 30 min mopping the floors and temping chems, and then a few minutes on the print. In Photoshop I get to spend the full 30 min working directly on the photo. All three examples used up 30 min of my time, but in one of them I spent all that time directly in the creation of the photograph.

On the other side of the coin in the darkroom I can spend a couple of days making and using an unsharp mask. In Photoshop it takes a few seconds. People may be more impressed with my effort in making the film mask, but the effect on the finished photos is the same (actually it's not, because I give up and accept the film mask even if it's not quite right after a couple of tries, while in Photoshop achieving perfection only takes a smidge more concentration). Because it's so time consuming very few of my film photographs ever got unsharp masking. I saved it for a few special photos every year. Because it's so easy all of my digital photographs can get unsharp masking. Even snap shots. Does it make them more than snaps? Nope, but they are nicer looking snaps than they were before.

Blaming Photoshop and/or digital photography for a lack of skill or taste or restraint in the photographer is no different than blaming film for all the lousy photos that have been taken using that technology. Both technologies make photography easy enough that anyone who is interested in learning it should be able to do so with some study and practice.

I do think digital has raised the bar on what we consider mediocre. Instant feedback is a big advantage in learning skills and technique. It also provides inspiration to keep trying and learning. I don't think people are better at photography because digital makes it easier. I think people are better at photography because digital makes it more fun. When something is a lot of fun people are more likely to become passionate about it. In the end, for all the new folks who are now into photography, truly intriguing and exciting photographs are as rare as they've ever been, because great ideas have nothing to do with gear or process.

Whew! Who's next up on the soapbox?

Scotty wrote:

LOL


And I'll add:


[/size]

I actually read all that! It was interesting reading about the old film processing techniques etc. Good post Matt.