The Photoshop Challenge

Did You Use Photoshop On That?  

The more I show my work in galleries and on-line, the more I recognize a set of routine comments and questions. There are the welcomed reactions; "Beautiful work", "I love your work", but these satisfying comments are often paired with the less straight foreword, "Looks like a painting".  I'm no longer annoyed by the "painting" comment. I simply choose to interpret the sentiment as meaning that my photograph doesn't look like the standard film photograph with all its limitations of color, focus and dynamic range.

Then there are the two most common questions. The first "What camera did you use?" makes me want to bludgeon the questioner with the

The Right Moment

"camera I used", but instead I try to patiently explain that the success of the image had much more to do with being in the right spot at the right time and planning the shot to give me the best image for the editing process. That answer doesn't always satisfy, but it often leads to the second, and more problematic question,
"Did you use Photoshop on that?"
and its corollary,
"Did it really look like?".



Storm Over Portland Head Light

The Photoshop Stigma

The world has become thoroughly familiar with the power of image editing programs, such as Photoshop, to alter reality.   Everyone has seen the atrocious examples of flawless models with legs twice as long as anatomically possible, and breasts which are incompatible with an upright posture. It is not surprising that our audience would wonder how well our images actually reflect the natural experience. Of course, Lightroom now enters into this discussion, but it is Photoshop which by far carries the greatest stigma.  As someone who invariably incorporates Photoshop into my artistic process, I have struggled with the appropriate answer to this pointed challenge and I have come to appreciate that the answer must vary depending on how editing contributes to our own images and how much the critic really wants to hear.

Old Faithful Dawn

Although I can't say that I've found the perfect response, my own explanations have evolved, and hopefully matured, over time.

Oops You Caught Me
An early reaction to this question stemmed for a embarrassed sense of insecurity and guilt. "Well yes, but only a little.", followed by an apologetic listing of every wire that was removed and every tweaked shadow or highlight. Partially, the goal was to overwhelm with enough minute detail to make the questioner wander away from shear boredom.  But I think I was also trying to convince myself that I wasn't cheating Mother Nature. The whole process became exhausting, leading to the natural over-reaction.

Damn Right I Used Photoshop,
What Are You Going to Do About It!
Probably not the best retort, but it does tend to end the discussion more quickly.

Question; "Did that sunset really look like that?".

 
Answer; "I can't precisely remember what it really looked like, maybe I should have taken a picture? Wait a minute, I DID! and here it is! You moron!!"

 
Ok, as much as I would have enjoyed it, I never actually said that. Although infinitely more satisfying, the aggressive responses are no less a sign of insecurity and don't accomplish anything to explain the nuanced decisions that go into editing choices in digital photography. So take a deep breath.
Let's start again.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did You Use Photoshop on That?

Yes

 Not "Yes, But", but, without hesitation, "Yes absolutely". "And here's why my images deserve everything I can do to make them the best they can be".

Start by estimating how much your questioner is likely to want to hear. I can go on for hours about the ability of Photoshop to bring out the best in an image, but a long involved dissertation is usually not the most effective approach. Based on the interest of the listener, the best response can be some combination of a number of different tracts of reasoning, and they range from the quick and coldly practical to the prolonged, warm and artsy.





The Practical
Shooting in the RAW
 
It's often my first response. "I always shoot in RAW, so I must use an editing program like Photoshop".  RAW images embody the most complete and accurate reflection of the natural scene (The purist critics love to hear that kind of stuff) .  RAW images contain the most information and provide the greatest flexibility during editing, but basic RAW images come from the camera appearing unnaturally flat, and dull. They must be edited to bring out their natural fidelity and so, of course, I must use Photoshop on every image. Quick and Simple, and although it doesn't remotely do justice to the process, sometimes that is all you need say.





Seeing Nature

Seeing What the Eye Sees
Here is where things get a good deal more complicated and lengthy. Compared to film, digital photography provides the opportunity to capture a scene in a way which is much closer to how our eyes actually see it. We can; expand the dynamic range, preserving detail from brilliant highlights to the deepest shadows; achieve tack-sharp focus from foreground to distant background; and keep color balance true to the subject despite the contaminating effect of varying illumination. The capabilities are amazing, especially to someone who shot film for years, but none of this magic is possible without editing software such as Photoshop. Although any editing can be taken too far, at its best, Photoshop is the key to capturing the world as we actually see it. When those unfamiliar with the "magic" look at one of these images and say, "It doesn't look like a photograph", I believe what they are really saying is "It doesn't look like what I expect from a standard film photograph", with all its innate limitations and its inability to see as we see".
And to that I say, "Absolutely !"






Seeing Beyond What We Can See

Chesterfield Gorge - Infrared

Photoshop is not solely about a slavish duplication of our natural vision. Digital photography and editing software are also about extending our vision to places we can only imagine.

Dublin Lake

I wrote a previous article about the ability digital photography to extend our visual perception. This includes seeing into the infrared spectrum, capturing motion in time laps video and gazing deeply into the far reaches of our galaxy. And yes, Photoshop is the window to many of these remarkable, but otherwise unseen worlds.

Pemaquid Light - HDR - Don't be Afraid, Its Only Art

It's All Art

The most satisfying compliment that I can receive about my photography comes when someone says,"Your pictures make me feel that I am standing right there in the scene". For me that is the magic and the art of photography, the ability to transport. There is no approach to image recording that can produce a completely accurate representation of the "real" world. Whether it is captured with colored paint, microscopic flecks of silver or tiny pixels, all methods of recording the world can only be imperfect approximations governed as much by the strength and limitations of the medium as by the actual experience. The art comes from the mastery of the particular medium in an attempt to capture the feel as well as the look of the scene.





Sunset in the Field

When I stand in a field, marveling at the remarkable beauty of a distant mountain, I know that I can't capture the aroma of the freshly cut grass or the gentle brushing of the cool breeze on my arms, but I can try to use the visual elements to reflect a small part of the complete experience. Photoshop is the brush I apply to my digital canvas to speak of what I felt, as well as what I saw. I could merely regurgitate the scene unedited, but, to me, that would seem false and would not do justice to the layers of beauty that bring me back again and again.


Lupine Sunrise

To me, someone who looks at any image and asks, "Is that what it really looked like" is fundamentally missing the point. If they want to know what
it "actually looked like", they should get out of bed at four in the morning to actually see and feel the sunrise for themselves. The test of any artistic rendering of reality extends far beyond the mere fact of the image, and how it was created, to how the work makes you feel. That deeper sense of the art comes only when questions about the kind of brush used or the way the pixels where brought to life are set aside. When the viewer can be transported, to stand next to the artist in the field and smell the freshly cut grass.

Rye Beach Rainbow

Whew! That was undoubtedly the most intense collection of artsy gobbly-gook I have ever produced, but  don't blame me, the question was asked. I would love to hear how you respond to the Photoshop Challenge. Hopefully after all the talk of RAW images, the nature of seeing and the art of reality, the poor victim's eye will have glazed over and he will just buy the damn painting.

Oops,  I mean photograph!

Jeffrey Newcomer
Partridgebrookreflections.com

Cropping, In Photography, Less is Often More

A Few Thoughts on Cropping
One of the most important attributes that separates a fine art image from a snap shot is its composition. A photograph of even a mediocre setting can achieve a level of strength and immediacy when composed with balance and a flow which draws the eye to the subject without distraction or clutter. There are many compositional rules can be of help in arranging a powerful composition, including the rule of thirds, use of diagonals and head room, but one of the simplest and most effective methods to add power and focus to an image is with cropping. Cropping may be performed in the camera or in post-processing.  I tend to crop aggressively, but there are a few considerations to keep in mind about the benefits and risks of the cut and slashing.  An important concern is to avoid cutting too far.



In Camera
One of the most obvious signs of a snap-shot is when the subject is


Move in and Arrange Head Room

only a small portion of the image, usually dead center and surrounded by distracting and superfluous material. It is often helpful to start with a broad image which establishes the location, but from then on the mantra should be "move in, move in". Whether you move in with your feet or with your zoom lens the goal is to fill the image with your subject. As you zoom what you are actually doing is cropping out extraneous stuff that only distracts from the focus of the image. 

Audrey's Trail




 The primary advantage of cropping and composing within the camera is that you are using all the pixels available on your sensor and getting the maximal resolution for your subject, but it is important to remember that the "subject" is seldom just the "subject'. The "subject" of an image of a beautiful tree may include a stream, rolling hills or perhaps a mountain in the background all arranged to complement and draw the eye to the stately Maple. The art comes from recognizing how your subject best fits within its surroundings and to avoid moving in so close as to eliminate important framing elements. It is appropriate to emphasize the advantages of zooming in, but it is also important to remember that the camera frame places restrictions on the picture's proportions that may limit options during the fine tuning of the composition in post-processing. 




The Tyranny of the Viewfinder
The camera viewfinder and sensor imposes a fixed frame around your composition. As you move in you can explore various arrangements of the important elements within that rectangle, but the problem comes when the best composition doesn’t match the dimensions of the frame. Although precise sizes are quite variable, most digital sensors are about half again as wide as they are tall, that is, most hover around an aspect ratio of 3:2 or 4:3. Specific dimensions vary, but the standard full size digital sensor is 37x24 mm or at a ratio of 3:2 (1.5). Nikon’s APS-H sensor can be 28.7x19mm (1.5), Canon’sAPS-C sensor is 23.6 x 15.7 (~1.6), and the smaller Micro 4/3rds sensors are 17.3x13 (1.33). Tightly composing within my full frame camera works well if the final image is intended to conform to a 3x2 aspect ratio. It will fit perfectly in a 12 x 18" or 4" x 6" print, but an 8" x 10" print has a ratio of 1.25 meaning that at least 17% of the pixels will need to be cropped away from one or both of the sides of the image to fit a landscape oriented 8x10 print. Important parts of the image may be lost if the composition is too tightly framed in the camera. The point is that overly aggressive cropping in the camera can limit final composition options when the image is adjusted in post-processing to fit specific output dimensions. 






It is great to move in to your subject to get the best use of your expensive pixels, but today's camera’s have resolution to spare and we can afford to allow a little buffer to assure that everything of importance will be preserved after the final crop. By all means, crop in the camera, but do it carefully and with an eye toward the options for the final composition. 

Photoshop can add a Rule of Thirds grid while Cropping

Post-Processing Crop
The capability to crop an image is basic in any photo editing software. As is true in the camera, post-processing cropping is done to fine tune the composition and to eliminate distracting elements along the borders.  It is also used to resize the picture for particular output dimensions. It is unusual to find a raw image that can't be strengthened by careful cropping, but before discussing post-processing cropping, I must mention one important basic rule.  Again it has to do with preserving your options.

Galapagos Islands, Ecuador

Before All Else, Do No Harm
Before I start cutting and slashing, I always save a full size version

Rethinking the camera Crop

of the image. Sizing, sharpening and cropping are usually the last things I do when editing an image. They are done to specifically tailor the image for its intended output, whether it is for a 12x16 print, a massive poster or a small web image. I do as much editing on the full size image as possible and then save that file as my baseline source from which all other images are derived. Since any editing that I perform after resizing will need to be repeated on all other output versions, saving a full size, edited version can save a lot of time. Actually, before I reach the point of cropping, sharpening and sizing, I save two versions of my full size image, one as the original raw file directly from the camera and the second including all my basic edits in DNG format. 




Cut and Slash, Why Do We Crop?
Stated most simply, cropping is the process of controlling what the viewer will see and just as importantly, what he won't see.


Improving Composition Probably the most important reason to crop an image is to arrange the elements within the frame to highlight and draw attention to the subject. This includes positioning the subject within the frame. Guides such as the Rule of Thirds can help, but often the best guide is your own eye. The use of diagonals and other leading lines can draw the eye to the subject and their strength can be enhance by how they relate to the frame. Cropping can adjust for proper headroom for the subject and move horizon lines away from dead center. At the same time elements which pull the eye away from the subject can be eliminated. 

Removing Edge Distractions
A basic step in editing an image is to scan the edges of the frame

Newfane Courthouse, Clonning Needed

for distractions. Distractions can include a stray rocks or tree branch, but may merely be a splash of unusual light or dark which pulls the eye. Cropping can often removes these peripheral blemishes, but when the cropping required affects the overall balance of the composition cloning may be a better solution. Finding distractions can often be complicated by our own focus on the detail of what we know to be the main subject. Before I finish editing, I will often sit back and squint to blur the image detail. It is surprising how often distractions can be revealed when the image is reduce to abstract patterns of color and light. 





Sizing
Final cropping is usually designed to size the image for the

Not all leading lines are straight

specific output requirements. This often includes adjustments to fit a printed version or web sizing. Changes in image size and resolution can affect sharpness. A final sharpening may be needed before the image is ready to be released to the world.

Cropping is perhaps the most basic tool for creating powerful compositions. It can be painful to cut away our precious pixels, but, in photography, it is important to understand that less is often very much more.