It looks like a few (well two) photobloggers are showing their unaltered pictures after reading my previous post asking photobloggers to show us mere mortals the original photos versus the finished product.
Inphotos and Dancing Shades of Light (I like the name) have both posted originals along side the finished item.
In Dancing Shades of Light Treasa (always thought there was an extra “e” in there somewhere) shows two photos in their final state, lists the steps taken and shows the originals.
Inphotos is showing one particular photo with a mouseover effect to show the original and the final print.
In both cases it is amazing to see what a relatively straight shot can be transformed into. The surfer shot initially is pretty dull and flat. Nice depth of field as well. The finished photo is b+w contrasty and something I would never have thought of doing with this photo, it is cropped to a very widescreen ratio.
Thank you to both photgraphers for taking the time to do this. If you know of any other photobloggers doing this post a link in the comments section and I’ll update the posts.
And as a bonus I have found another excellent photobloggers site. I hadn’t seen Dancing Shades of Light before.
Comment feed for this post
They may be extremely skilled at what they do, but it's a different category. I'm sure somebody's already coined a phrase for it (photoshopography?), and I think that's what they should describe themselves as.
Dodging and burning to increase contrast was done with cardboard and a light source instead of a few mouse clicks but the effect is the same.
Some of the things done to print photos include cropping while exposing the print
Changing the grain and contrast by using stronger or weaker developing solution and or at a hotter temp
Lightning or darkening the print by exposing for a longer time in the enlarger.
Dodging and burning by shading areas of the print during exposure or equally revealing only certain areas of the print during exposure
Different grades of photo paper etc.
And none of this touches on doing any brush work on the original negative.
Even the masters of photography do this. Take Ansel Adams (http://www.anseladams.com/), probably one of the best point, compose, meter, click proponents in the world. His negatives are superb, exposed correctly, frame the subject perfectly. But he still tweaked during printing, adjusting contrast etc.
Initially I used to think that photos should be a point click and done affair. But it isn’t.
Compositions of the shot, focus depth, lighting, compression of objects are all changes made before the shutter clicks. If my sensor or film doesn’t record the image the way I remember it then I think it’s quite acceptable for me to alter my image until it looks like I remember it in my minds eye.
However if I alter the image so that it looks different than I remember then we are wandering away from the art of photography and into pure art.
It think it comes down to what you expect from a photograph. An accurate but dull recording of real life or a pleasing to look at but distorted view of the world. The first is honest but the second is the one you would buy. :)
I second what has been said about Ansel Adams who is, in my opinion, possibly the best photographer the world has ever known.
There is a difference - and admittedly on occasion, a fine line - between postprocessing a photograph and creating a piece of digital art, but it doesn't lie in the tools.
My general policy is to do as much work as I can with the camera, but that does not exclude the use of tools afterwards to sort out common issues such as red eye correction and exposure correction. None of this is beyond the remit of photography.
To assume that the process ends at click stage is naive and simplistic. It never has. Only the tools differ now.
Looking at photoblogs every day I see that there are a lot of photographs that suffer because the photographer doesn't know when to stop with the photoshopping.
Personally I do a lot of my work in-camera. I very rarely crop my images in photoshop, I rely on my eye, the post-photoshop image is always judged against my own impressions of the moment.
I studied photography for a number of years and I learned what's possible in the dark room and I've experimented with techniques like solarization but what the courses did most for me was to train my eye.
Sometimes people say "Wow! you must have a great camera". The camera is only the tool, like the paint brush, or photoshop. Is a book better because the author used a typewriter or for that matter a quill and ink? The art is in the craft and knowing when to say "that's right".
One photographer who has been allowing trusted friends to view the before and after effect for awhile now is Lev Kolobov.
http://movie.leova.com/
He explains all here http://movie.leova.com/index.php?x=secret
(just rollover the little red o in the lower left of the page wait a second and the previous image will load).
If anyone is interested just pick an image from my site and I'll upload the original file.