Photoshop it Later
|
During the Thanksgiving weekend I toured 3 Deserts in California (Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Anza Borrego). I am sure I will have the pictures up soon, after writing another part of my Worklfow Tutorial. While I was in Anza Borrego, I saw a group taking photos of each other. The group members were sitting in the shade, while another member of the group whipped out his digital camera to take a shot. He snapped it quickly and then realized that he had forgotten to enable the flash. The faces of his friends were too dark against the bright sky. With the comment "I will photoshop it later" he stashed the camera away, without considering taking another picture. Photoshop is a phantastic software, but it cannot do magic. While he may be able to increase the brightness on the faces of his friends, he will most certainly get a choppy histogram if he overdoes it, will defenitely increase the noise and probably loose detail in the highlights if he doesn't blend the original and the "enhanced" pictures. I had a discussion with one of my collegues, who also believed that you can turn bad photos into good ones by means of digital photo editing. I see this kind of misconception among many hobby photographers, so let me say a couple of words. Digital Photography is so much easier, right? Wrong! There is no substitute for a good photograph. You can use Photoshop to make Enhancements to the color saturation, increase sharpness and do a whole bunch of useful things (including adjusting brighntess levels), however you will not get the same result as you can get with a photo that is exposed correctly in the first place. You cannot turn a blurry photo into a sharp photo simply by applying sharpening either. It is more a means of increasing the perception of sharpness by increasing the gradients between pixel brightness levels. Please do not try to "fix it in Photoshop" or to "Photoshop it later". Fortunately while I was discussing this with my collegue I had the September Edition of "Outdoor Photographer" around and as it so happens, the Editor (Rob Sheppard) made exactly this point in his editorial column. He insists that Digital Photography requires the same kind of expertise behind the camera as it did with Film Cameras. I couldn't agree more. Even if the person I encountered would be able to "photoshop it later", he would need at least 15-30 minutes of work on a difficult exposure, vs. 15-30s of work to recompose the shot and press the shutter one more time. Which one do you prefer? As my physics teacher used to tell me, Power is Work divided by time (this works better in German where Power (Leistung) also means accomplishment. Next time you set out to accomplish some great photos or to take a powerful shot, try to remember this. Shoot again if the photo is less then perfect. Bookmark/Search this post with: |
fix it later
I can only wholeheartedly agree with you that "fix it later" is not the best way of going about things. Having escaped the printing/pre-press industry a few years ago for the bright lights of television production I now (unfortunately) find the same attitude, i.e. "we'll fix it in post later" which usually takes more time and causes more stress than is warranted. If time is money and you have the opportunity: shoot again!
Thank you for backing me up
Thank you for backing me up on that one. I haven't even considered that the same is true for non-photography related things.
Fixing things that aren't right in the first place is always more time consuming and yields less satisfying results.
I am convinced that the person I met in Anza Borrego wouldn't even do it. Most pictures vanish on peoples harddrives forever.
In your industry, it sounds more like a way to reduce the workload of one guy by tripling the workload of another.
A photographer is usually responsible for the complete workflow, so he is cheating himself.
interesting story
One of my all-time favorite Photoshop fixes:
I throw a Mardi Gras party every year. At one party, I was walking around with a half-mask on, and somebody picked up my camera to take a picture. I threw my arm around my brother's shoulder, and they took the snap.
The problem is, I have a _very_ bad tendency to blink when photos are taken -- I have a sort of sixth sense of when the shutter is going to flip, and probably a quarter of all photos evr taken of me have my eyes entirely or half-closed. I can tell because when the flash goes off, I see a flash of red instead of white.
So... I blinked -- and immediately had a great idea. "Take another one," I said. My friend was skeptical. Why? The moment was gone. I asked him to take another one three times before he actually did it, by which point my shanghaied brother was kind of annoyed.
So the second pic didn't come out nearly as good. The expressions on our faces were both strained, and the mood lost. But my open smiling eyes were there, and best yet, perfectly framed within the holes of the mask -- which made for an incredibly easy Photoshop job taking them from the "bad" image and putting them into those exact same eyeholes of the better image. Came out perfectly -- and a great snapshot was saved from oblivion. :)
Nice
Excellent story Stephen.
I am not suggesting you shouldn't use Photoshop at all or you shouldn't fix things.
In your case Photoshop probably saved you from losing a perfect picture, as the moment was gone, but you were also wise enough snap a few more pictures, and those really don't cost anything if they are digital.
The picture the person I wrote about was a group picture. There was no fleeting moment involved and he didn't expose correctly. That would have been a lot easier to fix.
Thanks for taking the time to post your insight !!
good advise
We get very complacent and lazy when technology will do the work for us. Very wise comments for the digital photographer. My advise would be to shot film first and learn how shutter speed and aperture are related and work. Then apply the same knowledge to your digital work.You are very correct, "There is no substitute for a good photograph". Nothing makes me feel better than to show off my photo that didn't require manipulation...I will only shoot slide film for that reason...and that the quality is better :)
Keep preaching correct techniques!
About Film
About shooting Film: I can see where you care coming from, but especially for beginners (me included) digital has the benefit of being cheap.
Since I am not shooting for renowned magazine, I would have to pay ever roll of film myself, thinking twice before pressing the shutter-release button, but with digital I can try all sorts of things to see what works.
I don't have to manipulate my photos, but I can experiment a lot.
The same techniques apply to digital photography (shutter speed, aperture ...) if you use a camera with manual controls.
I admit that I shoot mostly in aperture priority or shutter priority modes and evaluate the exposure by examining the histogram.
Film
I started out in the stone age (film) taking photos. After "discovering" digital, I'm hooked. I love the idea of being able to take MANY photos without breaking the bank. I still retain the film mindset though. The pictures that I am the most proud of are the ones that I didn't manipulate with software. Sometimes I will take a dozen or more photos of the same subject to get the "one" that I'm looking for. I would much rather spend another half hour taking pictures than spending that same half hour sitting in front of a computer altering them.
That was a great post Andre.
That was a great post Andre. I've also observed that some seem to think the can fix it later, when really if they had a good exposure to start with it wouldn't be near as much trouble.
Post new comment