Digital technique

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having changed recently from film to digital and my new V-Lux1, I decided to seek out and visit my local Photographic Club, expecting to mix with like minded people with the opportunity to learn about style and technique. There were about 40 people present for a talk by a professional man about how he had changed from film to digital. The very clear message came across that, in digital, no picture is any good until it has been “doctored” either for technical quality or addition/removal of subject matter.

This made me very uneasy. For me, film is a very precise art with critical technique being at the point of shooting to capture the moment. Now it seems to me that we should no longer be talking about “Photographs” but rather we are producing “Images” where the real “photographic” skill lies in post processing on the computer and not with composition and exposure with a camera.

This is quite a psychological change to grasp, not least if it is also essential to upgrade from medium PC literate to PC expert status. ( I have and started using Photoshop Elements 6)

Am I correct about this, and how have others overcome the change in mindset and technique, if I am indeed correct in my perception? Is my head in the clouds if I ever expect to capture good digital shots WITHOUT post processing?

Richard

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

. .. a talk by a professional man about how he had changed from film to digital. The very clear message came across that, in digital, no picture is any good until it has been “doctored” either for technical quality or addition/removal of subject matter. Richard

 

Richard, I have been shooting dig negs for 4 years. I am about to doctor my FIRST photo.

 

By that, I mean that I smooth if there is lots of digital noise, I do white balancing all the time (unless not necessary), and I adjust the exposure scale so that the frequency curve maxes out the range. I also remove some blemishes -- but not moles and the like.

 

In the film world, the first was not necessary (or achievable), the second was handled automatically in color, and the third was also part of the darkroom process. Many also removed blemishes with dodging and burning. I always found the dodging and burning a real pain in the butt.

 

I do not sharpen (yet). As I understand it, this is standard practice in the digital world with the possible exception of M8 users.

 

Now, the (horrendous) step I am about to take involves substituting a sky in one picture. I have taken a picture of a hill and path leading up to a house at the top of the hill. The image leads the viewer right up to the house. Unfortunately, the overcast sky makes the picture sort of ho-hum. I plan to try substituting a blue sky at the top of the picture.

 

This is definitely manipulation, no argument.

 

However, I argue that the so-called manipulation that I described earlier is sensibly part of digi-pix and is also analogous to the darkroom processing carried out by Ansel Adams, Eugene Smith, et al.

 

What I really like about digi negs is the ability to carry out all the steps I do with such ease -- and no hypo smell. Also, if I want 6 of the same print, I load the paper, tell the print module to make 6, and go to dinner.

[popum]

Beware of camera clubs and especially their speakers. As one who is involved in two clubs (on the Boards of both), I can attest to the fact that the typical club member knows relatively little about digital photography. More importantly, clubs are often so despirate to find speakers that they don't really vet the qualifications of those they invite. This leads to just the sort of misinformation that you came away with.

 

IMHO you get much better information on any one the several excellent photgraphic sites on the web. The caution here is to aware of what the site sponsor is "selling". Many sites are just fronts for commercial efforts. (This, unfortunately, includes several photo sites that used to be quite independent in the information they presented.)

 

Mike

[elansprint72]

I don't see much difference between film and digital; I used to spend hours in the darkroom to produce decent prints- days for a large exhibition print. Now that time is spent peering at a screen. I don't think that I ever took a film shot which did not require some "doctoring", as you put it. Of course I'm talking about B&W here.

Colour slides you can't do much with and colour negative, as far as I'm concerned, still does not render true colour without an unbelievable amount of messing about and trial and error.

As for camera clubs, I baled out about 1977 and from what I've heard, they have not changed much.

Enjoy your V-Lux, it is an exceptionally capable piece of equipment.

[johnwolf]

...no picture is any good until it has been “doctored” either for technical quality or addition/removal of subject matter.

 

Richard, For RAW files, the first part of his statement is correct. They all require SOME work. But it's no more "doctoring" than choosing a certain contrast filter or developer or paper or processing time or any other variable that affects traditional print outcomes.

 

The second part of his statement is silly.

 

Digital post-processors run the gamut--from purists to extreme manipulators--just like darkroom workers do.

 

John

[ndjambrose]

When I learned to print in a darkroom I was always taught to doctor my prints. Anything undoctored was merely a straight print, and represented the least possible quality and artistic input. The end goal was a print that was dodged and burned to maximise the possible tonal range, and that was printed with multigrade filters for optimal contrast, and that was possibly toned or bleached depending on the choice of paper.

 

Digital prints require the same work. No more, no less. I don't call it doctoring. I call it decent printing. :-)

[euston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This made me very uneasy. For me, film is a very precise art with critical technique being at the point of shooting to capture the moment. Now it seems to me that we should no longer be talking about “Photographs” but rather we are producing “Images” where the real “photographic” skill lies in post processing on the computer and not with composition and exposure with a camera.

This is quite a psychological change to grasp, not least if it is also essential to upgrade from medium PC literate to PC expert status. ( I have and started using Photoshop Elements 6)

Am I correct about this, and how have others overcome the change in mindset and technique, if I am indeed correct in my perception? Is my head in the clouds if I ever expect to capture good digital shots WITHOUT post processing?

Richard

 

I don't think that you can avoid post production processing with digital any more than you ever could with film. In neither system does the photograph exist until it has been processed, either in the darkroom, the digital camera or in the computer.

 

If you shoot JPEGs you could leave all the processing to the camera, though there might still be adjustments you would want to make. If you shoot raw, on the other hand, you have to do the processing on the computer that the camera didn't do. That might include white balance and tonal adjustments. It might include noise reduction and sharpening. That's what I would call developing the image. How far you go beyond that, you have to decide, just as you did with film.

 

The V-Lux 1 is capable of excellent results but, in my experience, they don't always come easy. You do need to work at it. I've done better since I switched to raw capture and took more control of the image processing. The digital darkroom is the equivalent of your film darkroom, neither inferior nor superior - just different.

 

Photoshop Elements is a good program and well worth getting to know really well. One of the great things about digital photography is that you can learn by doing without worrying about wasting film or darkroom materials.

[leica dream]

That is most reassuring, thank you everyone.

I had not looked at this as being a "digital darkroom", even though spending many hours in my real darkroom for several years.

The first response from Bill is particularly reassuring, and in fact mirrors much what I thought would be normal. Indeed, the guy at the photo club was showing us Lightroom, but I have to say that he seemed rather confused himself about how to operate that!

I am much encouraged by all your remarks.

Richard

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}This is definitely manipulation, no argument.

 

{snipped}.

 

....and Bill, we did very much the same sort of compositing and manipulation in post with large negs, internegs, duplicate prints and slides. We could cut them (dupes of course), sandwhich them for unsharp masking (that was a film technique, folks, long before Photoshop carried it over into software!) and (of course) play with colour and tonality. For "white balance"--which you also needed to do, but we called it colour temperature balance--there were different films and a range of correction filters (and of course you can still use the filters in digital balancing too!)

 

@ Richard: there's one very good way not to have to post-process in a digital workflow. Shoot RAW, learn to preview the files (that's it) then find a very good lab. They will print and process for you, just like film, and you never have to worry about post or rotten skin tones again.

 

Yes, it costs more to do this, and it removes, once again, the photographer from the print // output process. But it certainly can be done, and the savings over film stock and with selective development is still considerable