The problem with Photoshop . . .
I learnt my photography the old fashioned way. I remember evenings spent in dark rooms under an orange glow from the safelight, with toxic chemicals, papers, a 30 year old Durst enlarger, developing tanks, trays and numerous prints hanging from makeshift washing lines slowly drying.
I reminisce quite fondly about those days, but digital has changed everything. Today, nearly all production in photography is digital, and whilst I still see my darkroom days through rose tinted glasses, I have to admit that digital is a very good thing. It’s quicker, cleaner, safer and far more flexible.
Photoshop is without question the industry leader in imaging software. It’s the daddy of them all, and it’s incredible what you can do with it if you have a couple of years free to study it in detail. But there’s a problem with Photoshop. And that is when do you stop!
For some once the image is up there on the screen it’s time to start making decisions. Does it stay in colour or should it be converted to mono? How about cross processing? Perhaps a vignette? Or maybe we’ll throw in a bit of film grain. How about a soft focus effect, or some diffusion? Maybe we should increase that colour saturation, or add a glow? Maybe it would benefit from increased contrast, or should we whiten the eyes? Converting it to black and white with some selective colouring might be the way forward, or maybe we’ll go for an old fashioned sepia tone. The choice is bewildering!
Each of these different techniques certainly has a place when used properly. The problem arises when we use too many of them without thought, and don’t know when to stop. At elmphoto we approach our photography in a similar way to web design is approached at our sister company elmnet. At elmnet, when we design websites we start with a wireframe. This is a black and white illustration showing the layout of a website. It shows where logos will go, where the menu will be, where images will be placed and what size they are. It contains no colour, and no shading. If you get your wireframe right the rest tends to fall into place, so once we have this approved we then go on to add colours and images. You can see an example of this above.
Applying this to photography is a simple step. We make sure that at the moment we press the shutter we first of all have a plan, and have our ‘wireframe’ in place. The subject is in the right position, and in the right pose. The elements around the subject have all been thought out, and the flash heads are in the right position, at the right output levels and with the right modifiers attached. It’s important to get these basics right at the very beginning of the shoot. You don’t necessarily have to spend a lot of time thinking about this. Sometimes it takes an hour, sometimes a minute, but the principle is the same. Some photographers take fantastic candid shots, others do a magnificent job of paparazzi style images where reaction is more important than composition, but for most of us good planning takes some beating.
Without the basics being right there is little point in pressing the shutter release. You can’t make a poorly thought out image a good one by using Photoshop, as if it doesn’t work at the time of capture then it never will. We like to get it right in camera. We’re not huge fans of Photoshop filters and plug-ins, we prefer to spend a little more time getting our lighting right with properly calibrated equipment, and we find that more often that not when we open up the image for the first time on our Macs we pretty much have it nailed.
From there we can digitally apply a style to that image. Again, we usually find that when actually taking the shot we know what we’re looking for. If we want to take a grainy black and white image then we’ll adjust the studio lighting accordingly and we’ll go for that style from the outset, just as if we were shooting on black and white film. If we wish to cross process then we’ll do the same. Each treatment requires a slightly different approach to do properly, and the choice of lighting, clothing, colours and texture makes a huge difference to the final image. Each image on an elmphoto shoot has generally been thought out, and we have a plan for how we are going to approach it. We won’t go wild though, and we won’t add Photoshop filter upon filter afterwards just because we can, as that’s not part of the plan!
Here’s a few examples of what we mean. In all cases the original, untouched RAW file is on the left, and the processed version on the right. All were taken on a Fuji S5 Pro, using Nikon prime lenses.
Cross Processing.
Cross processing is a technique traditionally applied to film stock, where the negatives (or transparencies) would be processed in the ‘wrong’ chemicals. Film usually requiring a C41 process would be developed in E6, and vice versa. This gives a shift in colour and usually (depending on development times) increased contrast.
Digitally this is easy to reproduce, but thanks partly to Photoshop plugins it has become rather cliched and abused, typically by some (but by no means all) wedding photographers. With this image we wanted to go for a gentle, cross processed look where the skin slightly bleaches but still maintains it’s natural colour. The original RAW file was shot and lit with this look in mind, and you can see that there hasn’t had to be much done to it to get the effect we wanted. Both shots are perfectly acceptable, but we wanted a more ‘fashion’ style look, which we think the second one gives us.
Cross processing doesn’t suit all images, and you have to be very careful with it when shooting people as usually it shifts the skin tones to the yellow end of the spectrum, which is far from flattering.
Black and White Conversion
Most imaging software has a ‘convert to black and white’ feature, in fact a lot of compact cameras do too, but this still requires some thought. We were looking for a light, airy, slightly toned mono image, and from the first instance we planned for this look by lighting the subject and exposing accordingly. We metered off the skin and overexposed very slightly to make sure we got all the shadow detail. We evenly lit the face, with a little less light appearing on the right of the head. We then used Adobe Lightroom to convert the image to black and white and apply a little sepia toning.
Again, forward planning was the key. If we had just taken the image without thinking about it and then unleashed Photoshop on it we don’t think we would have got as pleasing a result.
Vignettes
Perhaps the biggest cliche of them all – vignettes have been abused terribly over the last 10 years, and we’ve seen them used in several images when they quite simply shouldn’t have. A vignette added in Photoshop can work brilliantly, but not in all cases. Used unwisely you find that they can darken parts of the skin, which can lead to unflattering results for all without perfect complexion. If you can see the vignette and it is obvious then we think it has failed.
The image above was always intended to be darkened in the corners by a vignette after being taken. We planned for this by not shooting the image with light areas on the edge of the frame, and by choosing clothing carefully. The background was a neutral colour that wouldn’t distract. The clothing used suited the vignette effect as the natural curve of the collar is about the same as the vignette. Likewise, the curve of the top of the head matches the top part of the vignette. In this instance we thing it works beautifully, but adding vignettes to images just because you can isn’t generally a good idea.
I think what we’re trying to say is that it’s best to have a plan. The problem with Photoshop is that it can make us lazy. We can just take shot after shot without really thinking about what we want to achieve, and then open up our software and only then decide what we want to do. This seems to me to be working the wrong way around. We find that often we can look at a bunch of images on the web or in magazines, and tell which plug-in has been used to produce the effect. It doesn’t mean that it’s a poor image, but it does mean that it isn’t as unique, as lots of photographers are using those same plug-ins. Over use of this means that the photographer’s style is dictated by their software, rather than their imaginations. We’re fortunate in that we have complete control over how we want our image to look right from the very beginning, and we should take that control and use it well.
The examples you’ve seen are based on a studio or location shoot, where we have plenty of time to think about our images. Some would argue that those on a deadline don’t have this luxury, and I would perhaps agree with this, but only to a point. It takes a skilled photographer who, under pressure, can still visualise a shot, mentally organise his or her ‘wireframe’, compose and expose accordingly and still capture a moment. But then this is what separates a good photographer from a mediocre one.
At elmphoto we don’t shoot and ask questions later, we plan from the beginning what we want to achieve, and we don’t rely on Photoshop to make a mediocre image a good one.
