Professional Photographers and Editing

[ccrnkovic]

Just wanting to know do most professional photographers photoshop their portrait photograph to a large extent or do you think natural is better?

[I @ M]

Professional photographers take the photographs and then give them to the professional photoshop operatives to soften skins to plastic consistency, remove any ugly ugly ugly things like pimples or other such unsightly skin blemishes, increase the size of busts and decrease waists.

Guess which sort of photograph I prefer to see and take. :D

[kiwi]

No picture out of camera will ever cut it professionally. EVERY photo can do with something (eg constrast, sharpening etc). The degree that you go into things like skin smoothing really only depends on the images end use

[arthurking83]

Professional photographers take the photographs and then give them to the professional photoshop operatives to ....


... increase the size of busts and decrease waists.

Guess which sort of photograph I prefer to see and take. :D

Ummmm... :umm:

:D

I know which I'd prefer to 'see'.

But as for taking/processing/adding my name too them ... I prefer the natural method too.

[peterking]

Whilst not a professional I do take a lot of shots and have no problems showing them around.
Until late last year I was of the opinion that what came out of my camera, other than maybe a little cropping, is what I should show. What happened late last year is I read an article by a world renowned photographer and he said that "if everything goes right, which it rarely does, then maybe 10% of my images will get cropping and a little sharpening. The reality is that there is always something that has to be adjusted and I live with that." He went on to say that his inspiration was from a photographer from the early fifties who's images alone were nothing special. But his post processing was.
It was then that I decided to look further at post processing. Now I still like to keep the processing to a minimum and I have set the maximum minimum I will use. If the image fails that then it is left alone for another day.

[bigdazzler]

Depends on the intended use of the image really, as kiwi said.

But something to remember, good PSing can look very natural too. Sometimes the best editing is when the image doesnt look like its been edited at all ;)

[ricktas]

Firstly, there seems to be a recent trend where people are proudly announcing "I don't edit my photos". Well you damn well should!

Remember here that editing and photoshopping are the same thing. People have taken on board the term photoshopping to mean digitally editing a photo. Not just editing it in the software package called Photoshop.

Editing of photos is not something that suddenly happened 20 years ago when the advent of the computer and photo editing packages. Photos have been edited in the darkroom since the first ever photo was taken in the 1820's. Some of the world's best photographers did amazing things in their darkrooms, including Ansell Adams, Henri Cartier Bresson and more. They edited their photos! However sudddenly in the last 20 years we see a new generation who declare "I don't edit my photos". News Flash, until your photos presented on AP or elsewhere are as good as the above named masters, you damn well should!

Now back to the OP's question about portraiture. Everyone should (consider the above paragraphs), but how much editing is up to you and/or your client. You would have to have a range of editing techniques available to you, cause the editing done for a friend's baby shoot will be different to that needed for the cover of Vogue, but edit you must.

The trick is having the editing skills in the first place and then knowing when and how to apply them to suit the particular shoot you are working on.

So to the New Age purists, you go ahead and live in your belief that your photos do not need editing, and thus that your technique, camera, lens and sensor can somehow be perfect and not improved on and bypass nearly 200 years of experience, but if you want to make the most out of the results from your photos, learn how to edit!

[bigdazzler]

I think theres a common misconception that if an image has been "Photoshopped" it automatically looks fake. That is certainly not the case if you know how to use the software.

[wattsgallery]

Following from Rick's comments I don't believe its possible for an image to be presented in a viewable format without some form of 'editing'. If you are shooting in jpeg you are simply asking the camera manufacturer to automatically edit the raw data with predefined settings (which is fine if you are happy with that) much as converting an image later with a raw processor is also applying base settings/edits. To my mind you are either an 'auto editor' (by selecting jpeg) or a 'customer editor' (by using applying custom settings in computer out of camera).

Where it can get objectionable I believe is when the end image is a 'false' impression of the reality rather than an enhancement etc and the term 'photoshopped' to me can mean the manipulation of an image so as to change a reality in the scene. That gets to a credibility issue which is an important one for photographers because it can effect the value of the pursuit. There it depends on the tolerance of the audience for the intended output (ie. for an advertising shoot adding objects might be fine but dropping a few lions into a picture of a zebra herd in a fine art wildlife shoot may not).

Just my view.

[Kym]

Hmmm... Lets hear from one of the best: Ansel Adams quotes...


Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.


No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.


Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.


The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.


You don't take a photograph, you make it.

Remember that Adams himself was known for being a master in the darkroom.
From a bio: http://www.photographywest.com/pages/adams_bio.html

With more than half a century of camera work behind him, Ansel Adams stands as one of America’s greatest landscape photographers. His career is punctuated with countless elegant, handsomely composed, and technically flawless photographs of magnificent natural landscapes. No contemporary photographer equaled the lifetime contributions of Ansel Adams in bringing public recognition of the art of photography or taught so widely the techniques of black and white photography. His strength as an artist is largely attributed to his tireless investigation of the methods of photography, developing a careful darkroom technique of exposure and development he called the Zone System.

Personally I think Ansel would have loved digital camera's and Photoshop because of the increased creative capabilities.
Edit 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System#Misconceptions

The Zone System has often been thought to apply only to certain materials, such as black-and-white sheet film and black-and-white photographic prints. Adams (1981, xii) suggested that when new materials become available, the Zone System is adapted rather than discarded. He anticipated the digital age, stating


I believe the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.


Edit: http://www.amazon.com/Print-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221876

The Print is the third and final book in The Ansel Adams Photography Series--the seminal guides fully revised by Ansel Adams shortly before his death in 1984. The Print, now available in paperback like the other volumes in the series, belongs on every photographer's shelf. It covers the entire printmaking process, from designing and furnishing a darkroom and experimenting with your first print, to mastering advanced techniques such as developer modifications, toning, and bleaching, and burning and dodging. This thorough guide is filled with indispensable darkroom techniques and tips, and amply illustrated with photographs and technical drawings. It is an indispensable tool for mastering the complex art of photographic printmaking.

[ricktas]

Following from Rick's comments I don't believe its possible for an image to be presented in a viewable format without some form of 'editing'. If you are shooting in jpeg you are simply asking the camera manufacturer to automatically edit the raw data with predefined settings (which is fine if you are happy with that) much as converting an image later with a raw processor is also applying base settings/edits. To my mind you are either an 'auto editor' (by selecting jpeg) or a 'customer editor' (by using applying custom settings in computer out of camera).

Where it can get objectionable I believe is when the end image is a 'false' impression of the reality rather than an enhancement etc and the term 'photoshopped' to me can mean the manipulation of an image so as to change a reality in the scene. That gets to a credibility issue which is an important one for photographers because it can effect the value of the pursuit. There it depends on the tolerance of the audience for the intended output (ie. for an advertising shoot adding objects might be fine but dropping a few lions into a picture of a zebra herd in a fine art wildlife shoot may not).

Just my view.

True, but this only happens when bad editing lets you know that the photo has been edited.

I have presented this on AP before, but give this test a try: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=12601003 and you will see that the 'false' impression can be so well done that you cannot tell.

[bigdazzler]

Where it can get objectionable I believe is when the end image is a 'false' impression of the reality rather than an enhancement etc and the term 'photoshopped' to me can mean the manipulation of an image so as to change a reality in the scene.
Just my view.

100% agree .. There is a big difference between image editing and image manipulation.

[kiwi]

I dont have a problem with manipulation of an image in context of art as opposed to editorial

[bigdazzler]

I dont have a problem with manipulation of an image in context of art as opposed to editorial

I suppose thats the thing isnt it ... context.

[Kym]

100% agree .. There is a big difference between image editing and image manipulation.

And if this manipulation is valid depends on context.

A documentary/journalistic image should not be substantively changed. (Say giving Gillard blonde hair as a silly example)

But if it is a creative work then all bets are off.
Eg: One of Mick's http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=56873

[bigdazzler]

And if this manipulation is valid depends on context.




yep agree again ... thought thats what I said above ^^^^^^^ ;)

[Adrian Fischer]

there is a distinct difference between photoshop for magazines etc and what is used to bring out detail and enhance a portrait for a a "normal" customer I would think.

[bigdazzler]

But if it is a creative work then all bets are off.
Eg: One of Mick's http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=56873

Mick still hasnt "altered" the scene itself though Kym ... hes only added artistic interpretation to the overall look of the image through processing technique. Im sure the blender and burgers were actually on the bench when he took the photograph and not manipulated in later. I guess thats the difference when it comes to image manipulation.

[wattsgallery]

True, but this only happens when bad editing lets you know that the photo has been edited.

I have presented this on AP before, but give this test a try: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=12601003 and you will see that the 'false' impression can be so well done that you cannot tell.

Rick, I think there are 2 different issues here, one as you rightly point out is where poor technique is used which is inexcusable but the more concerning issue I believe is that there is a risk to the value that society places on photographer's work generally where image manipulation (vs necessary editing which I cover above) is done very well to the point that people don't know if any credit in the scene still lies with the original photographer. In fact now the more amazing a scene or shot the more people question in their own minds whether image manipulation (given it is far easier to do than it once was) is at play.

An interesting thread.

Cheers
Josh

[wattsgallery]

Just a postscript - I did the test that Rick linked above which is great and I encourage everyone to give it a go. Interestingly I reinforced my point in that I incorrectly picked 2 of the 12 and in both cases I assumed they were CG and didn't give credit to the photographers original work.

[ccrnkovic]

Wow, interesting, I certainly opened up Pandora's Box!!!

[Analog6]

Firstly, there seems to be a recent trend where people are proudly announcing "I don't edit my photos". Well you damn well should!

Remember here that editing and photoshopping are the same thing. People have taken on board the term photoshopping to mean digitally editing a photo. Not just editing it in the software package called Photoshop.

Editing of photos is not something that suddenly happened 20 years ago when the advent of the computer and photo editing packages. Photos have been edited in the darkroom since the first ever photo was taken in the 1820's. Some of the world's best photographers did amazing things in their darkrooms, including Ansell Adams, Henri Cartier Bresson and more. They edited their photos! However sudddenly in the last 20 years we see a new generation who declare "I don't edit my photos". News Flash, until your photos presented on AP or elsewhere are as good as the above named masters, you damn well should!

Now back to the OP's question about portraiture. Everyone should (consider the above paragraphs), but how much editing is up to you and/or your client. You would have to have a range of editing techniques available to you, cause the editing done for a friend's baby shoot will be different to that needed for the cover of Vogue, but edit you must.

The trick is having the editing skills in the first place and then knowing when and how to apply them to suit the particular shoot you are working on.

So to the New Age purists, you go ahead and live in your belief that your photos do not need editing, and thus that your technique, camera, lens and sensor can somehow be perfect and not improved on and bypass nearly 200 years of experience, but if you want to make the most out of the results from your photos, learn how to edit!

Hear! Hear! Rick. Anyone who has used a darkroom has gone through an editing process just by picking which grade of paper will best print their negative. Frank Hurley used to cut and sandwich up to 4 negatives to get his results - and they are now 'historical documents'.

Portrait photographers create what will sell to their client. Market imperatives determine the result.

We non pros have the freedom to do just what we want when we shoot - don't knock the pros for wanting to make a living.

[etherial]

Just a postscript - I did the test that Rick linked above which is great and I encourage everyone to give it a go. Interestingly I reinforced my point in that I incorrectly picked 2 of the 12 and in both cases I assumed they were CG and didn't give credit to the photographers original work.

I got 9 from 12 correct, guess I've got an eye for that type of thing. Anyway on the topic, I have no problem with image manipulation in the right context. For example taking someone out of a picture is generally fine if it is say advertising, but not acceptable to me if in photo-journalism.

And good PP, shouldn't shouldn't be noticable, it should look natural.

[WhoDo]

I have no problem with image manipulation in the right context. For example taking someone out of a picture is generally fine if it is say advertising, but not acceptable to me if in photo-journalism.

And good PP, shouldn't shouldn't be noticable, it should look natural.
Yes and I think these concepts probably go together at times, too. I'm more journalistic than artistic in my tastes, and I have no problem with minor post-processing of the image to clarify the natural message in photo-journalism. OTOH, change the context and it's no longer photo-journalism, is it? It's commentary, or portraiture or something else other than photo-journalism.

When it comes to artistic licence there are limits too, IMHO. There can be great beauty in the natural image, however flawed, and manipulating that to produce what is perceived as aesthetically attractive in the popular idiom can be, I believe, every bit as dishonest as manipulating the context of a journalistic image. Of course that's just my personal opinion and the older I get the less that seems to count! Just ask my children! ;)

[Redgum]

Little boxes, little boxes, so neatly stacked each way. I feel very few here have ever seen the art studio of a popular magazine or newspaper or even the processing/art lab of a throw-away publisher. Sure, the masters are wonderful artists but most have been commercial failures and that's fine and probably true of every painter, musician or photographer that has followed that path. But in reality these artists are not commercial or professional photographers. En-mass they account for so little of photographic work done world wide by so many great people.
Professional photography is about acquiring photos for money or reward and with all the major publishers worldwide there is a distinct line between the photographer and the processor. Sure, it helps to know your craft and how to process but in most commercial cases that will be completely out of your hands.
In simple terms a good professional photographer needs to know the fundamentals of a usable frame, get the exposure right and make sure composition is spot on. Any decent magazine, newspaper or publisher will handle the rest and as far as the majors are concerned will insist on the pristine RAW image or format of their choice, untouched.
So you need to get your terminology right, a photographic artist is or can be a master but more than likely will never be a professional.

[WhoDo]

...[snip]... a photographic artist is or can be a master but more than likely will never be a professional.
Point taken. Does that then imply that professional photographers - and you are uniquely positioned to reply - accept that they have absolutely no say in how their images are used or abused? Or is there a line in terms of manipulation of your "product" which might cause you to no longer make it available to any given commercial entity after the event?

For an extreme example: You take a terrific image of person of interest A at one event, and a killer image of person of interest B at another different event, and the post-processing genius decides to put them together at the same event implying some connection that simply didn't exist. That is seriously dishonest in any idiom. Would you refuse to supply images to that organisation thereafter? IOW, as a professional do you give up any form of control or responsibility when you sell the original image?

I am not being critical here; only intensely curious. Please don't take offence at the question. I have in mind the still current debate about retouching of images by the glossy magazines portraying an unrealistic image of what is attractive in women that most ladies cannot hope to emulate in real life.

[Redgum]

Point taken. Does that then imply that professional photographers - and you are uniquely positioned to reply - accept that they have absolutely no say in how their images are used or abused? Or is there a line in terms of manipulation of your "product" which might cause you to no longer make it available to any given commercial entity after the event?

For an extreme example: You take a terrific image of person of interest A at one event, and a killer image of person of interest B at another different event, and the post-processing genius decides to put them together at the same event implying some connection that simply didn't exist. That is seriously dishonest in any idiom. Would you refuse to supply images to that organisation thereafter? IOW, as a professional do you give up any form of control or responsibility when you sell the original image?

I am not being critical here; only intensely curious. Please don't take offence at the question. I have in mind the still current debate about retouching of images by the glossy magazines portraying an unrealistic image of what is attractive in women that most ladies cannot hope to emulate in real life.

Excellent questions. Many don't understand the role of a professional photographer particularly with commissioned work, corporate and industrial shoots and most magazine/publication photography. This type of work forms the greater part of a professionals life and is quite different to say wedding photography which is such a tiny part of the market.
The corporate industrial work is generally contractual and almost exclusively driven by the client, product shots in magazines and even high end photography for publications like National Geographic are driven specifically by the needs of that magazine.
The client owns the shoot and can in most cases do whatever they please with any photograph you may submit. In the case of most high end publications you submit a portfolio that may include two or three hundred frames. They could use two or three or any combination and that's their choice and you are paid accordingly, sometimes very handsomely. Generally, the higher your fee the less say you have in the end product. The client contracts your specific professional or creative skills.
General photography, like a car race, sporting match or function where the potential client is dependent on your skills pays considerably less because of the intangibles on both sides.
Most of my work is post-produced by the client but I do have to shoot to a specification so the fundamentals are important. In essence it's a business focus not necessarily an art form. Hence my remarks differentiating the master from the professional. To make money you have to produce what the client needs which may not necessarily be the outcome you would like personally.

[WhoDo]

To make money you have to produce what the client needs which may not necessarily be the outcome you would like personally.
Is it fair to say then that professional photographers would necessarily spend more time in touch with their inner technician than their inner artist? I'm sure the reality lies in some sort of balance between the two, but I guess that you're saying the scales are heavily weighted to the technical side for commercial work? If so, how frustrating do you find that? Do you ever walk away muttering to yourself "... that Philistine wouldn't recognise a great shot if it bit him (or her) on the nose?"

Maybe your answer to those questions would put someone's ambitions to turn this hobby into a profession in a more realistic light. Just a thought. Thank you for your patient responses thus far.

[Redgum]

You know WhoDo I've had nearly thirty years of professional experience and of course you get frustrated. The key I feel is to look for a variety of work (sometimes a necessity) to ease that frustration. National Geo is so different to product shoots and both are different to corporate work. Last week I was photographing the new livery on Queensland trains. A month ago I was in the Philippines, last year in Africa, Monday is a product shoot.
Over the years I've become a business person with photography one of my skill sets. In the pure art form there are many folk more creative than I, particularly on this forum, but I make really good money from my profession and I thoroughly enjoy it. In fact I love photography so much it's also my hobby. And in fact it's only my second occupation with television production, documentary making my primary living.
Anyone looking at photography as a living needs to develop creative and technical skills but without a firm base in business and a real love for the life style will find it very hard in deed to succeed for long. You've gotta love it. :)

[WhoDo]

Anyone looking at photography as a living needs to develop creative and technical skills but without a firm base in business and a real love for the life style will find it very hard in deed to succeed for long. You've gotta love it. :)
I'm hearin' ya, Redgum. For me the lifestyle would be the killer. I work for a global laboratory company and one of the "perks" is a fair amount of travel. I've come to dislike aeroplanes, airports and hotels intensely! It just isn't the lifestyle for me, so following the call of a professional career in photography definitely wouldn't be on my bucket list!

I do understand your passion for the craft, though. I am a professional educator who has come to be a business person with education among my skill sets. There isn't anything I enjoy more than getting back into a training session with a bunch of eager learners. The necessary evils of budgets, targets, EBIT, etc., all fade into obscurity when an eager mind challenges me for answers! As you said, you gotta love it!:efelant:

Thanks again for taking the time.:th3: