Photoshopping, a good or bad thing to do?

[ced]

I think when people talk about PHShoping it is all about what is adding or removing of people/things, painting like makeup in fashion photos & things needed in the commercial field of adverts, falsifying news events with flames & explosions being introduced where there weren't any. Regular tools like gradation, sharpening/blurring, toning, colour correcting, saturation/desaturation, dirt removal & artefacts that came about from scanning or development or processing is vital to presenting a decent image as one would like it to be seen. I think there are many tools in PS that we are fortunate to have at our disposal. No need to feel guilty give us great images...

 

[MattKing]

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.

Don't see a problem with that, personally. It's similar to what people used to do back in the day, when making prints of a negative with an enlarger was popular: they often used to make judgments about the characteristics of the originating film via a print. Imagine that. An often heavily manipulated re-projection of a negative over other light-sensitive photographic material, with dozens of new variables thrown in.

The difference from "back in the day" is that the enlarger was much less of a "black box" - mysterious things weren't happening beyond the printer's knowledge and control.
A darkroom printer can compare two films more objectively, because they have more ability to use exactly the same light to expose onto exactly the same colour paper.

 

[RPC]

Color negative paper and process is designed to interface directly with a color negative and is optimized for it. Scanners must deal with both slides and negatives, completely different animals, with different dye sets, spectral characteristics, and the orange color cast of the color negative, no doubt resulting in quality compromises being made in the design of the scanner compared to paper. And you are of course also involving software quality, profiles, monitor calibration and printer characteristics and other variables with scanning and printing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think when people talk about PHShoping it is all about what is adding or removing of people/things, painting like makeup in fashion photos & things needed in the commercial field of adverts, falsifying news events with flames & explosions being introduced where there weren't any. Regular tools like gradation, sharpening/blurring, toning, colour correcting, saturation/desaturation, dirt removal & artefacts that came about from scanning or development or processing is vital to presenting a decent image as one would like it to be seen. I think there are many tools in PS that we are fortunate to have at our disposal. No need to feel guilty give us great images...

+1

 

[MattKing]

Digital tools are what one uses to deal with digital files.
Just as darkroom tools are what one uses to deal with negatives or, with some materials, transparencies.

That's incorrect. Negatives are often digitalised and digital tools are what one uses to process digital files, doesn't matter where they originate from.

You misunderstand me. I was merely saying that you need to use the tools suited to what you are working from - there is no "good or bad" involved. If you haven't digitized from your negative or slide, use the darkroom. If you have digitized from your negative or scan, then you need to use digital tools.

 

[albireo]

The difference from "back in the day" is that the enlarger was much less of a "black box" - mysterious things weren't happening beyond the printer's knowledge and control.
A darkroom printer can compare two films more objectively, because they have more ability to use exactly the same light to expose onto exactly the same colour paper.

The digital editing workflow of a scanned negative is no less, or no more, of a black box than the darkroom printing workflow leading to a print of said negative. Both need discipline, study and practice, and neither is really difficult. Digital negative processing is based on a few basic notions of computer science and mathematics that any interested practitioner can master in time, just like - to mention just one of the tools of analog photography - densitometry is nothing more than basic physics that any interested practitioner can master in time.

I'm sure a skilled darkroom printer can compare two films objectively *within their workflow*, just like a skilled hybrid shooter can achieve internal consistency *within their workflow* and cancel out most of the variables outside of any negative-specific signatures. Both workflows are able to do that. The key here is 'relative consistency'. There is no absolute 'reference' for how a negative should look. A print has stopped being one for many years now.

As an aside - film photography is going in very different directions from where it started many years ago. Darkroom printing is only one of many desired outputs and certainly not an 'absolute' reference for anything anymore. Nowadays one can do so much more with a negative, thank god. So many ways to enjoy all these beautiful classic cameras and to have fun with processing.

 

[MattKing]

I should probably have qualified my observations - I am referring to the large majority of photographers who just look at their automatic or semi-automatic scan results (either from their lab, or their scanner/digitization setup) and reach conclusions about the films scanned.
I am completely in agreement that skilled operation of a film to scan to post-processing to print or display workflow gives tremendous control, and can result in wonderful results, if one applies sufficient energy and experience and diligence to the process.
But I do feel that the digitization step is both critical and, for many people, a source of variability that is poorly understood and controlled. That variability is what makes film analysis and comparison based on scanned/digitized results so much more hit and miss, for so many more people.

 

[mtjade2007]

I should have made it clearer, I am wondering if heavy photoshopping is a good thing to do for scanned film images in producing a final viewing form via a monitor or a fine Epson printer. Many thanks to everyone who replied. I have made a conclusion for myself. Just do it. That's wonderful. I did wet printing long long time ago. I don't think I will look back in any case. Here is one of my pictures from film scans with some photoshopping done to it. If it were a wet print it could not be here without photoshopping. Have a great day.

 

[Cholentpot]

Remember when photos had dust and hairs in them and that was it? You lived with it? Thank you photoshop.

 

[mtjade2007]

Remember when photos had dust and hairs in them and that was it? You lived with it? Thank you photoshop.

How about this? I would have long abandoned film photography if not because of the existence of the digital solution.

 

[removed account4]

How about this? I would have long abandoned film photography if not because of the existence of the digital solution.
View attachment 277608

what solution is that ?

 

[mtjade2007]

what solution is that ?

Scan the film followed by photoshopping. This solution did not exist for me before 2001/2002. I could only go for wet printing before then. I still have all those equipments to do it the old way. But no, I am not going back.

 

[removed account4]

Ahh, I didn't know that there was a problem that there was a solution needed
but I see what you mean, I never learned how to print color, and I like having the flexibility
to interpret my color negatives ( or chromes ) and have a print made ( or make one myself on my 65$ ink jet printer ).
We live in a golden age of photography with lots of possibilities, the trick is to ignore all the people that say NO and do what you want,
sadly there are a lot of people who like to impose their rules of making photographs onto other people, there aren't any rules. ..

except Have fun!
John

 

[Pieter12]

I really don't get why someone would shoot film and then scan it and manipulate it in photoshop or other program. Why not shoot digital in the first place? I know there are dyed-in-the-wool silver addicts who will disagree, but for me all the claims of the difference between film & digital go down the drain once a negative is scanned.

I only scan negatives to make contact sheets, and I scan darkroom prints in order to distribute them electronically. They are not the final product. When I do shoot digital, I tend to only manipulate the image as I would in the darkroom, with the occasional edit to clean up a stray hair, wire or other minor distraction.

When I worked as a professional art director, retouching was a normal, expected part of the process. Bad retouching is bad retouching, no matter it is done digitally or with an airbrush and dyes.

 

[albireo]

I really don't get why someone would shoot film and then scan it and manipulate it in photoshop or other program. Why not shoot digital in the first place?.

This is really surprising. Do you really - truly - not get it? Or are you just trying to start a flame war? There are hundreds of reasons. Hundreds. Start with a little search on youtube to get you started.

 

[Pieter12]

This is really surprising. Do you really - truly - not get it? Or are you just trying to start a flame war? There are hundreds of reasons. Hundreds. Start with a little search on youtube to get you started.

Yeah. I don't get it. Too bad.

 

[Pieter12]

Because it's awesome. I am assuming you're genuinely curious and trying to understand other people. Making a photograph and presenting a photograph are two different things. I embrace film for making, but despise paper as a presentation layer.

Here's the list of why we like the scanned film workflow:

• Slightly distorted picture due to film's characteristics, i.e. representation of reality instead of clinical reproduction.
• Delayed gratification
• Benefit of slowing down
• Ability to actually see what's on film, vs losing that due to RA4 limitations
  
• Painless contrast & dust control
• Painless dodging & burning
• Ability to use modern presentation medium like monitors, phones, tablets, LED TVs
• Ability to easily share and sell your work

Basically you get all benefits of film-based photo making workflow, combined with presentation benefits of 2021. Another angle is this:

• A gorgeous photograph shines on paper when it's on the wall.
• 99% of not-so-gorgeous photographs die on paper because nobody looks at paper unless it's on the wall.

At this very moment I have about 500 printed photos in my house. 3 are on the walls and I see them every day. 497 are in some boxes somewhere. Haven't seen them since we moved 3 years ago.

And the reason not to start with digital in the first place is?
• A talented operator/artist can introduce as much or little color distortion and grain as desired, so the reproduction is less "clinical."
• You don't have to look at a digital image right away, so delayed gratification is moot.
• You can work as slowly in digital as in analog, ditto.

 

[mtjade2007]

This is really surprising. Do you really - truly - not get it? Or are you just trying to start a flame war? There are hundreds of reasons. Hundreds. Start with a little search on youtube to get you started.

It's funny. I posted this thread in the analog forum first. People there seem dislike it and kicked me out and moved it to here. My guess is I touched the ultimate digital tool Photoshop so they have a reason to move me. I am a film shooter. All I asked in this thread is about one post processing solutions of shooting film. It looks like scanners and photoshop are prohibited there. I probably have stepped on the red line there.

Pieter, it took me many years to finally find the reasons to continue shooting film. I have a Canon 5D-iii and I shoot both digital and analog. Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[warden]

I really don't get why someone would shoot film and then scan it and manipulate it in photoshop or other program. Why not shoot digital in the first place? .

It’s funny, I’m just the opposite. I don’t get why someone would use digital when they could use film and scan it. I am researching the purchase of a high-end digital camera and my intention is to use it exclusively for digitizing negatives. Go figure.

There’s no wrong answer really.

 

[grat]

I really don't get why someone would shoot film and then scan it and manipulate it in photoshop or other program. Why not shoot digital in the first place? I know there are dyed-in-the-wool silver addicts who will disagree, but for me all the claims of the difference between film & digital go down the drain once a negative is scanned.

Film is a tool. Digital is a tool. Darkroom printing is one set of tools to produce a final image, digital editing is another-- although even if you produce a darkroom print, if you want to share it outside your local photo club, you need either an art gallery, or digital tools.

Use the tools you want, rather than becoming a tool of a different sort.

 

[mtjade2007]

Also, I want to cautiously make another comment: I have never seen a wet RA4 print that's even close to a modern digital print from a scanned negative. The reason I say "cautiously" is because my wet prints are from the 80s and I didn't get to chose the lab, but I suspect it's still incredibly hard to achieve comparable result 100% chemically.

Well said Gregg, I suspect those insist in wet printing being superior really know how good Epson pigment based printer really are. I own 1 Epson and added 3 Canon's to my tool box because they use cheaper ink. They are all large format printers. Film images printed by these printers are simply awesome. Oh, I should also say digital camera shot images print extremely well too.

 

[removed account4]

I really don't get why someone would shoot film and then scan it and manipulate it in photoshop or other program. Why not shoot digital in the first place?

I usually shoot film or paper in the first place because I like having an artifact of my endeavors that is tangible. ... and that includes paper images that are ephemeral and can not readily be fixed and things that are made with photo sensitive materials I make myself. I also shoot film to begin with because I kind of like to be able to make a deep scan or a light scan and be able to print something 3feet by 8feet if I want, I can't do that in my darkroom except as a mosaic, I don't have a lot of money and if I was to sell everything I own to get digital gear that I would be able to do what I do with film, I wouldn't be able to afford it, the digital gear I use is a iPhone 10, a Nikon d300 a 12year old ( maybe more? ) epson 4870 scanner and a epson perfecttion 640 all in one printer .. not to mention there is a certain something I can get with a film negative or chrome that I can't replicate using digital technology so what's the point?
im happy with the way I do isn't that what is supposed to matter?

 

[RPC]

I have been set up for optical printing for years and see no reason to change.

Those who are not, will probably benefit from scanning and photoshopping instead of optical printing.

But in my case, and I am sure this applys to others, I am able to produce quality prints without any photoshopping and I am glad of it. I would not want to have to go to photoshop to fix/finish my images, like many who scan seem to have to do. I shoot with care, develop the film myself and print with no adjustments other than routine color balance and density adjustments. The design of the film, paper and processes make this easy if you do them right. I choose a film that gives me the contrast and saturation I want and when the prints are made I almost never see any reason for adjustment, nor would I want to have to do it.

I have seen many images where the use and overuse of photoshop produced some pretty bad results. And prints from scans that look so good, how much photoshop manipulation was done to make them look that way? That's not for me. Oh, I have seen some pretty bad optical prints too, usually because the photographer needed some schooling, but I know done right, it can produce great results. If you do your own processing, there are ways to control contrast and saturation if you want to.

But everyone should do what works for them.

 

[warden]

I usually shoot film or paper in the first place because I like having an artifact of my endeavors that is tangible. ... and that includes paper images that are ephemeral and can not readily be fixed and things that are made with photo sensitive materials I make myself.

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.

And I know this matters to almost nobody, but I like knowing that there is a little thickness to negatives and positives that relates to the lightness and darkness of the images, like a little bas relief. Holding some Provia on edge and seeing the relief of an image is just special, and I value that little life-affirming moment. The three dimensional quality of film is a joy.