See the presentation slides

Printable PDF handout

Related posts:

1. Photographic (digital) Workflow
2. Free Software
3. Don’t Bruise the Pixels

It’s too sharp!

Oh, my! Sorry for using a good lens. I was surprised to hear this comment from a photographer of stature, again based on a total lack of understanding of the digital medium. Luckily, another panelist spoke to this point in an indirect way. Thank you Mr. Benjamin. Let us think about the “too sharp” criticism, is it the sharpness that is in question or is it the careless application of digital sharpening? A photographer who knows digital photography would have spoken to the latter. Now, if you compare the photographs taken decades ago to those taken today you will see definite differences in sharpness, contrast, color rendering, distortions of several sorts, etc. Today’s cameras, lenses, film, developing, paper, and yes, digital sensors are far better than what we used to have 30 years ago or more. I will not apologize for having a better designed lens or a more capable camera. The same superior results are visible in slides, prints and digital images, we are all better for these changes and we should stop blaming anything for it. If a careless person over sharpens the digital output, may his knife be dull forever!

It is manipulated, digital that is

Well, show me an un-manipulated photograph and we’ll call it a realistic sculpture (see Ron Mueck’s work among others that you will find by searching for “realistic sculpture”). Photography, at its very core, is a series of manipulations of reality. It takes a three dimensional world and flattens it to two dimensions, thus manipulating perspective. Using different focal length lenses we can, and we do, change the type and amount of this manipulation. A photograph is recorded on a medium, film or digital. The choice of film with its response characteristics manipulates reality, Velvia 50 or 100, Provia or Superia, Kodachrome or Ectachrome, Agfachrome or Anscochrome. And of course, we must not forget the venerable fine art photography medium “black and white” which really manipulates reality by discarding color altogether, (we don’t need no stinkin color). And where you have your film developed and the control conditions manipulate it, differentiating your roll from mine. When it comes to photographic prints, the avenues of manipulation are even more and varied. We dodge, burn in, in varying amounts to boot. We breathe on the print while being developed to accelerate the development of that localized area, use two-developer processes with or without water bath in between; use or skip acid fix; turn the lights on for solarization, and the manipulations continue. This all happens for a good reason: the photographer has the image in her or his mind and is trying to communicate that to the viewer. More power to them!

People who argue on the basis of “manipulation” against digital photography are probably expressing their envy of the “manipulation” tools that digital photographers use and the clean smelling environment in which they can do their work. Incidentally, most of the so called “manipulation” tools in digital photography come straight from the darkroom. I have stressed this point in my presentations on digital workflow that those who are good at darkroom workflow will understand “digital manipulation” better. It is a better dodging, burning, localized processing, spotting tool than the wet darkroom counterparts.

No, friends, we cannot have, and will never have “un-manipulated photographs”. This is a dead horse and please stop beating it.

May you have the best medium!

Related posts:

1. On Giclée and Understanding Digital Photography, II
2. On Giclée and Understanding Digital Photography, I
3. On Photography, a Panel Discussion

Too many photographs does not make bad art

The unstated starting point of these arguments, I think, stem from the proliferation of digital cameras and the extraordinary number of photographs produced and displayed, rather than the “value” of the art whatever that may mean. Yes, digital photography created an avalanche of photographs, but it is the information technology that made them visible. People have been taking photographs in very large numbers and confining them into an album under the best circumstances, or more typically, storing them in the old shoe boxes for many, many years. It is the advent of the Internet and many photograph hosting sites that gave digital photography the “in-your-face” appearance. I have been doing digital photography for more than a decade using the best available technology I could afford. So have millions of others. But all this work remained in “digital shoe boxes” in our hard disks or CD media. It would be a grave mistake to equate the proliferation of digital photographs with the proliferation of photographic art. Fine art photography begins and ends with a vision in the mind of the photographer. If those uninformed individuals will look at a fine photograph, admire it, and then raise their had to say “you must have a good camera and a powerful computer”, the best response will be to look at them, smile and nod. I am still looking for that “great photograph” button on my computer many claim that it exists.

Ability to create more than one copy is not limited to digital photography

I have heard this so many times it has almost become a mantra: “you can print so many copies, therefore it is not original art.” Well, we do know that wet-darkroom photographers can, and do make a perfect print, photograph it and print many more copies from that perfect negative. Many who argue against digital photography as an art form (I am not arguing by the way, against wet darkroom where I have spent my share of time) do not know of this practice or simply overlook it. The amount of work that goes into the master file from which many prints can be made also eludes those who seem to know “the button” to push to create the perfect digital file. I have prints of digital images where I spent several days on creating the master file (simply because I do not know “the button” to push or where to click.)

A related misconception is that because we can print many copies of the master file we actually do this. We don’t! Why would I print many copies of the same file where I can produce it on demand with freedom to change my mind on the presentation. I have printed many photographs multiple times but rarely in exactly the same way. I may change the paper I use from luster to matte, interpret the colors or emphasize different parts of the image. Furthermore, let us be very clear on this, it is impossible to have multiple copies of “an original” that are all the same. Think about it, they are on separate pieces of paper, they are not the same, made with different drops of inks, and so on. This is analogous to saying “don’t photograph sunsets (sunrise, wild life, fill in your subject here) anymore, they are all the same.” Are they, really?

Digital photography is less labor intensive

Oh, really! And why should it matter anyway? Using roll film is less labor intensive than using wet plates, but I don’t see the same people who level this argument, an uninformed one I must say, against digital photography coating their glass plates and carrying their wooden cameras to photo shoots. Nor should they. The only thing I ask from these people is not to equate the time spent with the artistic processes with the quality of the work produced. Furthermore, they should try producing digital work first to find out how time consuming it is before jumping to conclusions.

Now, be honest, don’t you know artists who may buy a cheap pair of sandals and a tube of crazy glue and glue the bottoms of the sandals with a title like “Imprisoned” or something like that? (Don’t go out to produce this art, it’s already mine!) Do we dare question the quality of their art based on the simplicity of the process or the money they spent on the materials? Anyone can buy the sandals and the crazy glue and stick the shoes together. But the idea, the original art came from the mind of an artist to express an idea, which is the foundation of art, any art.
One more installment coming soon.

Related posts:

1. On Giclée and Understanding Digital Photography, III
2. On Giclée and Understanding Digital Photography, I
3. On Photography, a Panel Discussion

Everything that is important in analog photography remains the same in the digital work flow, only the tools change. We can follow the same work flow I have outlined above for film-based photography in the digital domain, in fact I personally do exactly that. In fact, the more experience you have with the traditional film photography and darkroom techniques, the more digital tools will make sense to you, they are derived from the darkroom and film tools of yesteryear.

Know, or be willing to learn how to photograph

No digital camera I know comes with a “great photograph” button, I wish it did. You, the photographer, still need to develop your eye, learn the rules of composition, know the effect of exposure, and exposure adjustments. There is no difference between the digital and the film photography while you photograph. None.

Know your equipment and tools

The fact that digital photography does not require a darkroom does not mean that we can produce better photographs using computer software. Remember the adage GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Digital photography can produce better photographs from ordinary snapshots, just as good as I can play the violin using digital music tools. (Ouch!)

Camera gear

In terms of the knowledge of the camera gear, the digital domain is more demanding, there is more to know and know it well. The film-based camera has fewer settings beyond the shutter speed, the f-stop, the light meter. The digital camera, on the other hand has myriad of menus, settings, image formats, compression settings, image sizes, white balance, and so on. The first step in producing high quality photographs is to know your camera and know how to choose your lenses depending on the circumstances. There is nothing in the digital workflow that will fix the mistakes you make here. Yes, there are ways in which we may be able to extract a little more information from the digital image under some conditions, but the same is true for film by using push or pull processing with the accompanying adjustments in exposure.

The software

Just as the film-using photographer chooses his or her film, the developing method, which is particularly important in self done B&W developing, the digital photographer needs to choose the software to use to “develop” the photograph. Some software is already embedded in the digital cameras, without this software no digital camera can produce images. Even if you decide to let the software embedded in your digital camera to develop your images, you still need to learn, and carefully use the different settings the camera offers. These include, but are not limited to the image format, compression, contrast, sharpening, color balance, and so on. Of course, you may decide to do these steps using an external software which may give you greater control on their implementation.

Know how to make the best presentation for greatest impact, in print or on screen

The proof of good photography is in its presentation, slide (screen for digital) or print. This too is not different from film photography. Remounting a slide for better composition, sandwiching a couple for creative expression, poring over a print in the darkroom dodging, burning, local developing show markedly superior results when done right. Likewise, doing the same in digital domain makes eminent sense. Conceptually, there is no difference in the presentation and the path we follow to come close to an ideal image.

Suggested workflow summary

1. Capture the maximum amount of information in camera
2. Shoot in RAW format if your camera allows
3. Allow minimal processing in camera in JPEG format
4. Copy the image to your computer
5. Review and delete
6. Renaming is a personal preference, I leave the original names and directories
7. Never edit the original image, leave it intact
8. Convert RAW with care like developing film
   • a.Convert to TIF if using external RAW converter
   • b.If using ARC (Adobe Raw Converter) built into Photoshop CS, CS2 and Photoshop Elements, save the converted file in Photoshop format
9. Study the image very carefully, have a vision for the finished product
10. Always use nondestructive editing
11. Save your layered file in Photoshop format not in TIF, more efficient
12. Correct geometry, crop
13. Global edit, color correction, tonality
14. Local edit, color, tonality
15. Sharpen, never sharpen until ready to print
16. Print
17. Dry (yes, dry!)
18. Present

Related posts:

1. Don’t Bruise the Pixels
2. Single File HDR, really?
3. Sharpening Workshop