Before & After
February 28th, 2006People ask me all the time if I edit my photos. This is a loaded question. Of course I edit them. It’s very rare that a photo just happens and everything is perfect. Sometimes everything is great, but the light is flat or the tone is wrong. Most of the edits I do involve color correction (or color interpretation) and sharpening. The images are resized for sharing on the web, and sharpening makes a big difference when you shrink an image.
On the day I took this photo
the sky was flat and gray. There was a ton of construction and the best shot was at the tram stops. The problem with the tram stops is that they have tons of overhead wires that are a complete distraction from the subject. As an exercise, I decided to remove the wires and then color correct, sharpen and touch up the sky:
I don’t always do such drastic work on an image, but it felt good to abuse the clone and healing tools.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
this is a fantasatic before or after. i am certainly not at the level of expertise that you are, but i appreciate the time it must have taken to get rid of those freakin’ wires.
i will also add into the chimes of tutorial please!
February 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
stolen from some website somewhere..
“Photography Documents Reality -
I’m constantly amused when discussions break out about the validity of using Photoshop to tweak colors or to retouch a small imperfection. “People expect photos to document the real world, and you should print images as you took them” goes one argument. Poppycock. The mere act of taking a picture destroys the ability to “capture” reality.”
personally.. i dont care.. so long as people admit that they tweak and edit.. attempting to pass something off and unedited just makes them look foolish
February 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I work part-time for a publishing house here in Australia while I am finishing up my Master’s. I do a lot of graphic design work, in particular working on the covers of memoirs we publish.
The author of one of these memoirs had a particular photo he wanted featured on the cover of his book, it was of his wedding day, a simple shot of him walking with his wife.
‘Cept that she had this NASTY pit-juice-stain on her dress and I spent a large part of my day getting rid of it in photoshop.
Some nights I have horrible dreams where the clone and healing stampls do not exist and I wake up freaking out, till I realize that no…it was just a dream, and all is O.K. with the world (of photoshop, anyway).
February 28th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I too am somewhat of a photo snob. I’m very attached to shooting, developing, and printing my own film, and to me, it was an invaluable way to learn the art of photography. I did all of my early work on an old manual SLR, no gadgets whatsoever. It’s like first learning to drive in a manual car; you’ll probably drive an automatic sooner or later, but you feel much more able as a driver because you understand everything behind the tools that are making your life a little easier and faster.
That said, digital is clearly our future. For one thing (and for this aspect I am grateful), it has opened up photography to so many people. It has sparked an undeniable interest in a subject I love and find to be incredibly important within our society.. an interest that many people would not have found if it meant going out, buying film and a film camera, spending money developing shots, etc. Digital allows access to anyone — and encourages practice and frequent use by being low cost (once you get over the hurdle of acquiring a camera). We’re receiving visual information on a completely new level.
So while I am still mourning the slow loss of quality dark room time, I think I — and many other so-called photo elitists — am kidding myself to think that this kind of editing isn’t going on every day. I think the fear from serious photographers is the con to all the pros I listed above: that it’s too accessible to anyone, that the skill that once developed (no pun intended) only in the dark room is now at the touch of a mouse click to any person who can get a copy of Photoshop. Good post-processing in a digital forum takes skill, though.. Your before and after is evidence of that. It’s becoming the editing of the future. And again, that has a plus and a minus side. It allows for shots like yours to be shared just how you pictured it in your head, colour correction and wire elimination included. Some will argue that it’s the deletion that is crossing the line of responsible editing.. that you’re missing the point of photography (assuming that is accurately capturing our present).. but again, like I said, I’d be kidding myself if I believed you’re the only one taking such creative liberties. It’s like everything else: the technology is now in our hands, and we will push it to its very extreme limits. That’s the way it goes.
All of that said, great work.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Seems to me that as technology advances we are just having to redefine what we call photography. A purist would say that anything photoshopped is not true photography. Yet, does not a photographer edit while shooting, choosing different angles and changing the light to better capture an image? It is all relative to your perspective. We just have better tools now to do post editing. Doesn’t change the fact that we are capturing what we want and showing what we want.
Nice work on your shot Jon.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Geez I wish I had that touch with Photoshop.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Photoshop is an amazing tool, and it can be used to hide or fix a multitude of sins, or in this instance enhance a shot that was compromised by an environmental factor.
It’s part of the creative process and as such should be valued as an important part of producing an image. I personally try to leave as much of the original source image as possible when performing edits of this nature, but colour correction and sharpening in Photoshop are just as important as a decent lens, UV filter and decent flash in my humble opinion.
To my mind, as long as the image speaks to you it doesn’t matter if it was made with a pinhole camera made out of a shoebox and 35mm black and white film, or with a $20k 18 megapixel Hasselblad with digital backplane.
Good job on the heals/clones.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
It is things like this that make me wish I took the time to take some classes before graduation in computers and graphics. Argh what a waste of space I’ve been!
This is post number two where you’ve gotten me to regret something. Grr.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:45 am
In my opinion:
Digital or not, a monkey can point a camera, shoot some film and get lucky, but I wouldn’t call him either a photographer or an artist. Editing starts with the eyes seeking out the shot and goes from there. Technology has just taken us farther with the end-result than the darkroom. It just serves to force the fact that has always been there, whether ‘purists’ want to admit it or not: an image is an interpretation of a moment as presented by the creator, regardless of how manipulated it is or is not, and completely relative.
I like the world as seen through Photoshop.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:36 am
Hey Jon,
I thought the wires gave it perspective and context… just a thought.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:16 am
For myself, editing is just as fun as shooting. Clone tool: One day I will conquer you!
Is is art? it depends on what you think is art. I do not think painting a canvas red and sticking some candy wrappers is art but some people do and who am I to judge?
Except what Mia Farrow did with her boobs and some paint. That’s definitely not art.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:03 am
not to sound like a troll, but this is a weary debate. when you shoot with film, you’re still changing the way the image looks even before the film is processed, based on your film selection (eg. velvia and provia interpret colors differently) and then the camera’s meter throws things as well by trying to find the average light reading in the meter. longer exposure, brighter image; shorter exposure, darker image… with noting to say of lens distortion (in wide angles) and depth of field compression with telephotos…. so who the hell cares if jon wants to clone stamp out some stupid power lines? how is that different than salgado’s use of the darkroom with his BW prints? ansel adams’ relentless dogding and burning? lanting’s use of flash in the jungle? muench’s restoration of faded slides in photoshop? till’s clone stamping of contrails out of his 4X5 scans? image or photograph, it’s all manipulation anyway!!
March 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
Hi Jon,
I’ve long admired the photos both you and Heather take. I’ve also been baffled as to how you make your flickr icons so clear given the tiny pixel size — is cranking sharpness before resizing the key?
I’m not new to digital, but I am treating myself to a DSLR for my birthday this month. I know you have tons of people asking you questions about photography, but I’ll add one of my own: Do you have any thoughts on the D50 vs the D70/D70s for an amateur like me? Heck, if any of the other readers/commenters have a response to this question, feel free to answer; I’d like to get as broad a sampling of answers as possible.
Anyway, thanks for sharing everything you do — photos, family, writing, technical expertise, etc. — with all of us out here on the Internet. You and Heather are so very inspiring.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:15 am
what exactly does the healing tool do?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:04 am
I think your pictures always look great. I dislike that people get hung up on if pictures have been a little touched up. It helps enhance your already gorgeous shot and in my opinion it takes a sharp eye to know what to edit, what not to and how to do so. You take amazing shots.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:11 am
soylent red:
i am a fan of the Canon S2 series… quite a few dslr features, half the price. well worth checking out in your comparisons.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:36 am
To those who use a digicam and don’t think they’re manipulating what they see, I’ve got news for you. Unless you shoot RAW, your digital camera is applying sharpening, saturation and more. Also note, the CCDs in a digital camera do not see colours like the human eye; it works in greyscale. Technically, you have to tweak your image to match what you saw (or what you remembered seeing!).
BTW, nice job, Jon. Keep the pictures coming.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
W/r/t the “what is…” questions (”What is a photograph,”What is manipulation,” etc.) I think the fundamental question encompassing all others is “What is reality?” One person might primarily consider reality what happens apart from him - like a tree making a sound in the woods regardless of whether he is nearby to hear it. Another person might think of “reality” as something much more subjective — such as standing on a hilltop watching a tree fall half a mile away, not hearing the sound, and calling the fall “silent.” In both cases, science suggests strongly that a tree likely makes a sound when hitting the earth. So what’s the reality?
Here’s what I think: There are ethics in art, just like there are in other fields of creation and endeavor. It’s awesome when we see a photo that looks like it’s been massively retouched and are told it hasn’t been at all — this is part of the experience of the viewer of such a photograph; we’re impressed not only by the beauty (or magnificence, or grotesqueness, whatever) of the photo, but also by the fact that there was a photographer around to recognize and capture the moment. If we learn later that the photo was, in fact, retouched, we’re disappointed and I think rightly so: our experience of the photo was influenced by what turned out to be not true. Lying is bad mostly because of what happens when the lie is found out - whole spectra of feelings of disappointment, bitterness, betrayal, etc. This is true in art as in every other aspect of our lives.
On the other hand, a photo we know has been retouched can be just as impressive, for different (but related) reasons. I like the idea that a photographer can have an innate sense of what an image, or subject, or composition might look like, if some of its elements were different — that’s an example of a little thing we like to call “creativity.”
How many Pre-Raphaelites used dead lambs and models soaked to the skin, nearly dead with the flu, in their bucolic paintings of sun-drenched Biblical scenes, etc.? Dudes, we know a lamb would never ever sit still long enough to be painted for the hours and hours it took those guys to mark out every discrete strand of hair (or wool, as the case may have been). We know, for the most part, that such paintings did (and do now) often require preparation and production in terms of models and sets, that, if seen apart from the canvas, would have given the viewer little sense of what the canvas would ultimately show us. But, knowing this, we don’t automatically see this preparation as proof that the composition of the painting was “false” — not a “real” painting.
Jon is right when he says photography is about capturing light. I will flesh out this argument further by suggesting that everything visual is about capturing (or reflecting) light. Sometimes our production is done for us — as during the perfect 8 or 9 minutes of a particularly fine “magic hour” — and other times we affect production more heavily, as when we use filters, or a flash, or a particular color of backdrop. I don’t know that it makes sense to differentiate between pre-photograph production and post-photo production (Photoshop, etc.). Sometimes our own bodies affect the way we perceive light - for example, people who are color-blind, or people who are very frightened, or people who were born blind but who have sight-restoring operations. My blue might be your green, and your grassy knoll might be my hyper-colored flashback, and his perception that of depth might be our single-planed mosaic of shapes and colors.
I don’t think the word “photograph” should be anything but descriptive of a very general process — that of using conventional tools to capture the image of light on a tangible surface. What happens before and after the photo is taken is where critique comes in. Saying a photograph is “fake” ought to mean the photographer did not actually use any type of photography tool to take the picture — and I’m blowing my own mind right now trying to imagine how this might be possible. (It’s easier to say a painting is fake — for example, if someone passes off a filtered Photoshop image as an actual painting.) I also don’t like this throwing around of the term of “snob” - either proudly or derogatorily — because I think it’s irrelevant and distracting, as an attempt to talk about what you like or don’t like.
I better stop now while my post is more than too long.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:05 pm
erisian:
I’m sticking with Nikon because I already have a Nikon N80 that I use for film, and it is my undertanding that I can use the variety of lenses I have for the N80 with the Nikon digital. Thanks for your input.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Is it totally retarded that I thought you just took really good pictures?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 am
WOW! I have GOT to learn how to do that….
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Great picture! Doctor’ed or not, it still serves as a reminder of the time you spent there, and that, to me, is what its all about.
Libby,
I have found Planetphotoshop.com to be a great resource for learning new things. It has a great tutorials section that always helps me when I’m stuck, or want to learn something new.
March 3rd, 2006 at 2:11 am
Oh, wow. Does God himself live in the second picture? Is that where all that heavenly light is coming from?
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:33 am
Jon, where do you think news photography plays into this debate? I’m a reporter by background and a hobby photographer, and I’m honestly not sure where to draw the line. Using this photo as an example, I would say the color-correcting would be OK for news usage; removing the power lines would not. For me, it’s a question of what I consider the substance of the photo.
March 4th, 2006 at 1:31 am
I use PhotoImpact and do some of the same type of stuff, but not that good. yet.
Sometimes it feels like the color gets drained out of my pictures and it needs something more.
Sometimes you need to take some color out, like the bruises on the kids arms (JUST KIDDING PEOPLE!!)
I like how you darkened the sky around the edges, THAT is what I want to figure out how to do.
Got time to tell us?