Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

removed account4 · Jun 17, 2021

warden said:
It's a fair point. It's nice to have an asset (the negative) that doesn't rely on external technology to be archival and allows further refinement when scanning/digitizing improves, if you like that sort of flexibility.

I don't have a lot of faith in digital storage and knowing that there is a solar blast coming eventually that will erase a lot of the things we take for granted ...
having done work that required I give a client a CD with images burned on it ( and I saved copies of each CD for my own files ). ... the files were eventually contaminated with digital rot and could not be opened, even on "high grade DVD/CD Media". .. that said some of my clients no longer want 4x5 or 35mm negatives but TIFF files ( and yes I cringe ) I've been in a habit of doing archival work for decades and I'd rather know the work that I produce isn't vanished ( not that my work is any good but for the sake of a visual record that records a sense of place ). no, im not vain just know its easy to forget what the corner gas station and pizza shop sort of looked like before they were torn down sort of thing ... at least with film someone might see the negative and say "it might have looked sort of like this". besides I like seeing what things look like on film ( and paper and .. ) ...

Pieter12 · Jun 17, 2021

mtjade2007 said:
My questions is if I scan my films should I phtoshop the images to yield reasonable image quality.

It strikes me as extremely irrational, irresponsible and unethical to want reasonable image quality. Take ownership and be proud of whatever you have without resorting to heretical means like manipulating in any manner.

Pieter12 · Jun 17, 2021

jnantz said:
I don't have a lot of faith in digital storage and knowing that there is a solar blast coming eventually that will erase a lot of the things we take for granted ...
having done work that required I give a client a CD with images burned on it ( and I saved copies of each CD for my own files ). ... the files were eventually contaminated with digital rot and could not be opened, even on "high grade DVD/CD Media". .. that said some of my clients no longer want 4x5 or 35mm negatives but TIFF files ( and yes I cringe ) I've been in a habit of doing archival work for decades and I'd rather know the work that I produce isn't vanished ( not that my work is any good but for the sake of a visual record that records a sense of place ). no, im not vain just know its easy to forget what the corner gas station and pizza shop sort of looked like before they were torn down sort of thing ... at least with film someone might see the negative and say "it might have looked sort of like this". besides I like seeing what things look like on film ( and paper and .. ) ...

Fortunately, I am not in the business of archiving or documenting anything for anyone. I print the images I like in editions of 5 and that's all there is. Posterity be damned.

removed account4 · Jun 17, 2021

Pieter12 said:
Fortunately, I am not in the business of archiving or documenting anything for anyone. I print the images I like in editions of 5 and that's all there is. Posterity be damned.

yea. I don't think the library of congress, state archives or public libraries I work for would be too keen on everything vanishing ...

Cholentpot · Jun 17, 2021

It's nice to use a fountain pen even if word processors exist.

grat · Jun 17, 2021

Pieter12 said:
It strikes me as extremely irrational, irresponsible and unethical to want reasonable image quality. Take ownership and be proud of whatever you have without resorting to heretical means like manipulating in any manner.

.... did you actually manage to type that with a straight face?

grat · Jun 17, 2021

Cholentpot said:
It's nice to use a fountain pen even if word processors exist.

True. But ctrl-x and ctrl-v are significantly easier to use than actual cut and paste when you decide your argument would be stronger if you switched the order of two paragraphs.

Cholentpot · Jun 17, 2021

grat said:
True. But ctrl-x and ctrl-v are significantly easier to use than actual cut and paste when you decide your argument would be stronger if you switched the order of two paragraphs.

You'll get farther in any relationship if the letter is in pen. Never mind the penmanship itself these days. It's the effort and time that counts.

Anyhow, what I do with my photos after I shoot is between me and my Creator. 'Oh yah, its SOOC. I didn't touch anything youbetcha. This? It's a flatbed scan of a wet print.'

Prove me wrong.

removed account4 · Jun 17, 2021

grat said:
True. But ctrl-x and ctrl-v are significantly easier to use than actual cut and paste when you decide your argument would be stronger if you switched the order of two paragraphs.

I hand wrote a 20’page thesis pencil/pen/ink on paper and used scissors and tape and cut and pasted edits before committing it to a digital file…. It’s the best when you can’t read your own handwriting and edit what you wrote because you had to translate a foreign language…

warden · Jun 17, 2021

Pieter12 said:
Fortunately, I am not in the business of archiving or documenting anything for anyone. I print the images I like in editions of 5 and that's all there is. Posterity be damned.

Do you delete all your files after you make the five prints?

grat · Jun 17, 2021

In high school (the late 80's), in a literature class, the teacher wanted students to write their essays by hand (in pen) so that she knew the student wasn't cheating. I told her that my handwriting in cursive was shockingly bad, and while I could write in block letters, it was intended to be for my use only-- clear, but small and fast, so I preferred to type my papers. She said she could deal with the block writing, and I should do it in pen.

My first paper came back with a note that said "Please type your future papers".

I don't mind doing things the old fashioned way-- I shoot digital, but I also shoot film, and hope to start shooting some glass plates soon. Although to put things in perspective, I'm waiting on my (new) 3D printer, as I'd like to have a half-plate daylight developing tank. But again-- these things are tools. Sometimes a hand tool is appropriate-- and sometimes you gotta switch to power tools. A text editor allows me to make multiple passes through my thoughts, and arrange them in the best possible manner.

Pieter12 · Jun 18, 2021

warden said:
Do you delete all your files after you make the five prints?

The prints are not made from files. But the negatives are filed. Just for laughs, I might destroy them before I die, like Brett Weston. Not that I am in any way in his class.

MattKing · Jun 18, 2021

mtjade2007 said:
I suspect those insist in wet printing being superior really know how good Epson pigment based printer really are.

Most of my colour prints nowadays are actually done by labs from digital files exposed on to RA-4 photographic paper. I prefer that to almost all colour inkjet prints I am seeing.
I like the colour palette of RA-4 paper.
These are decent facsimiles of how those prints are rendered:

janew · Jun 18, 2021

Pieter12 said:
I really don't get why someone would shoot film and then scan it and manipulate it in photoshop or other program.

Some of us just like taking analog pictures better. And some of us don't have access to a darkroom.

mtjade2007 · Jun 18, 2021

Pieter12 said:
It strikes me as extremely irrational, irresponsible and unethical to want reasonable image quality. Take ownership and be proud of whatever you have without resorting to heretical means like manipulating in any manner.

Digital shooters can set strict limit in how much photoshopping they should do. Isn't it nice after all sorts of algorithms and manipulations are done for you by the hardware/firmware of the camera to redraw and repaint the signal captured by the CCD then deliver so called RAW files to you? In Fact film shooters are pretty much in a very similar boat. Film scanners really will do similar tricks except there are really much more treasure in that magic for film shooters to explore and take advantage of. Digital sensor is only one film but film shooters have dozens to work on. So don't be surprised film shooters use photoshop.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 18, 2021

MattKing said:
My only complaint with post-processing the results of scans is when people do so, and then turn around and use the result as basis to make judgments about the characteristics of the originating film.

+1

This totally invalidates any comparisons unless you use exactly the same digital process for every emulsion.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 18, 2021

jnantz said:
I usually shoot film or paper in the first place because I like having an artifact of my endeavors that is tangible

This is the same for me too, particularly with black and white film. I've also been experimenting with digital images converted to bw that I contact print onto 8x10 darkroom paper for a physical version to be archived. I like having an actual physical artifact for important stuff. The ones and zeros are fine and have a place, but very few things beat actually holding a physical thing that will last a long time as long as your house doesn't burn down. Obviously there's a pretty hard limit to how many of these you can physically have, but for stuff that's important to you, I love that sort of thing.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 18, 2021

mtjade2007 said:
I believe post processing with Photoshop after films are processed and scanned is a common thing to do. It is common the initial scan of the film yields images requiring some editing, cropping, density and color adjustments. But there are people who insist in not photoshopping or only do it at a minimum degree. I personally usually only photoshop to adjust the overall density (like adjusting exposure), color balance. I almost never do sharpening nor color saturation boosting, etc.

However, I recently realized that the scanned images from films are already heavily tweaked by the scanner and you really don't know what were done by the scanner at all. If one want's to evaluate a film's color characteristics, or evaluate how the film process was done (to judge if a film is bad or the chemicals used in the process is bad for example) the best way to do it is to have the film (negatives) to print a RA-4 paper. This makes sense so this is not my question. My questions is if I scan my films should I phtoshop the images to yield reasonable image quality.

I often shot scenery with Kodak 160/400 NC films for the reason these films have a wide dynamic exposure range so that I could capture highlights and not losing shadows as well. The problem is these films tend to yield lower color saturation. I know they are designed that way. I found I could boost the color saturation by photoshop. The result usually is amazing. Even if I shot with 160/400 UC further boosting color saturation would yield magical results. But then here comes the question is it a good thing to do? I could shoot with my Canon 5D full frame and the images will come out with full blown colors. So if digital cameras do it why not I photoshop my films? Any comment is welcomed. Thank you.

I never hesitate to photoshop the heck out of it; use the tool to its fullest capabilities as I use any other tool. reality is not the goal;artistic interpretation is!

Foto Ludens · Jun 18, 2021

RalphLambrecht said:
I never hesitate to photoshop the heck out of it; use the tool to its fullest capabilities as I use any other tool. reality is not the goal;artistic interpretation is!

This is perfectly legitimate, though I begin to get uncomfortable once one gets to the point of adding or removing elements from the scene. This was always possible before Photoshop, by bleaching or painting negatives with a brush, but it takes the work away from the realm of photography pure and simple and into the realm of illustration. Once you know (or suspect) that the images have been manipulated in that manner, they lose a lot of their impact.

But again, this is not a digital vs analog issue in my mind; it's a photography vs illustration issue (and it may not be an issue to others).

Foto Ludens · Jun 18, 2021

Incidentally, some folks here might enjoy Errol Morris' book Believing is Seeing, where he discusses pre-digital manipulation of photography. It really drives home the point that Photoshop did not create anything new; it merely makes manipulation much easier and faster. So again, it's not a digital vs analog issue...

PerTulip · Jun 18, 2021

Photoshop is just one of the tools in „the box“. I have also noticed people despising it. What is their stance on gradations, dodging and burning?

warden · Jun 18, 2021

Pieter12 said:
The prints are not made from files. But the negatives are filed. Just for laughs, I might destroy them before I die, like Brett Weston. Not that I am in any way in his class.

Ok gotcha. I thought you were shooting digital.

mtjade2007 · Jun 18, 2021

[QUOTE="Andre R. de Avillez, post: 2432810, member: 1549"
I begin to get uncomfortable once one gets to the point of adding or removing elements from the scene. [/QUOTE]
I never allow myself to add or remove any thing from my shots, except removing dusts. That is not the art of photography. It is in my opinion only done by con artists.

Alan Edward Klein · Jun 18, 2021

MattKing said:
The three main reasons to to work in film first are:
1) some of us have lots of the film experience, knowledge and stuff already, and very little or no digital experience, knowledge and stuff already;
2) there is nothing in the digital world that equals a projected transparency - particularly medium format transparencies; and
3) if you want the flexibility after "capture" to work either way, the legacy hardware that converts still digital images into a film negative aren't great, and hard to find.

Matt, When I moved to NY from NYC with my projector and slide trays, I found that the projector broke. By that time I had been scanning film. So I decided to scan all my old slides that I wanted to keep and found that displaying them on a TV is just great. Now I have a 75" UHD 4K TV and the images are superb. I can't compare against a slide projector because I don't have it any longer. But I can tell you that the TV being back lit just makes the photos pop. Take a look yourself and let me know what you think. Here's my Yotube page. You'll have to be able to use a smart TV to connect to YouTube. The Scuba slide show are photo's from 35mm film scanned. The Scuba photos are not my best because they were the first ones I scanned. But you'll get the idea. The other "Shows" are from digital cameras.
(5) Alan Klein - YouTube or
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

Alan Edward Klein · Jun 18, 2021

You can also view the slide shows on your computer.

Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

removed account4

Pieter12

Pieter12

removed account4

Cholentpot

grat

grat

Cholentpot

removed account4

warden

grat

Pieter12

MattKing

Moderator

Attachments

janew

mtjade2007

Adrian Bacon

Adrian Bacon

RalphLambrecht

Foto Ludens

Foto Ludens

PerTulip

warden

mtjade2007

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency