What does it mean to "Photoshop?"
10/10/11 20:59
What does it mean to “Photoshop?”
Recently I watched a documentary about professional photographers that worked for a leading outdoor magazine. Most of these photographers came from the film era of photography. One of the photographers was asked about their use of Photoshop. He was quick to inform the interviewer that he never “photoshopped” any photographs that went in the magazine. That got me to thinking about what his definition of “photoshopping” a photograph was and how he could make such an audacious claim. This was not the first time that I have heard bogus claims by “professional” photographers. Their claim to not “photoshop” an image, which most assuredly has been through a digital correction process, is really a form of legalese and is designed to elevate their perceived artistic talents while simultaneously denigrate other photographers that rely on the “crutch” that is Photoshop.
The image on the left is an in camera JPG image and the image on the right is a RAW image with contrast and color correction.
Before the age of computer manipulation of images, the photographer relied on a variety of techniques to provide saturated, color and contrast corrected photographs. This was achieved by selection of filters for the camera, the type of film, the speed of film, and the processing of the film. Most photographers, especially those working for large journals and magazines, controlled the filter and film selection; but the processing of the film for print was usually handled by either a fulfillment house or an art department and an art editor. In this department, techniques such as un-sharp mask, dodging and burning, and filters designed to provide a bluer sky, a warmer sun-soaked beach, or brilliant contrast, were applied liberally. Even the chemicals chosen to develop the film would be manipulated so as to produce effects. A process known as cross-processing is a classic example of darkroom manipulation in order to achieve a desired result.
In 1987 - 88 Photoshop was born. It was an answer to a prayer that photographers and graphic artists had had for a very long time. It was a cost effective method of doing the post production/darkroom work on a photograph using a computer. The method was fast and non-destructive to the photograph. At first, only a select few art departments could afford the scanners and computers necessary to use this new technology. However, with the advent of the digital camera and less expensive more powerful computers, the darkrooms all eventually died away and the photographer took control of the work from the composition to the printing of the final product. This revolution took place in less than 20 years.
I started this article off with claims that many professional photographers state that they have never “photoshopped” an image. Furthermore, I claimed that the term “photoshopped” was a carefully selected word designed to imply that no post processing of the image is ever performed yet not actually saying that no post processing had been performed. I now want to decipher or translate into common terms what is actually meant when these claims are spouted.
This image was stored as Black and White JPG in camera. In the day of Ansel Adams and group f64, colored filters would have been applied in front of the lens, at the time of shooting, to increase contrast. Then when the negative was processed and finally printed, everything from the chemicals used to how long the negative should be submerged in the chemicals and what paper it was printed on would impact the outcome of the print.
Cropping, color correction, sharpening, blurring, cross processing, gradients, dodging, burning, and contrast correction are the most commonly performed tasks performed in Photoshop. These techniques are direct descendants to wet-darkroom techniques and as such are not included in the definition of the word “photoshopping.” When a photographer says that a photo was “in camera” or “not photoshopped” he is not saying that the photo has not made a trip through Photoshop or one of the many photo manipulation programs on the market today. What the artist is saying is that the composition of the photograph is in essence what could be seen with the human eye if you had been in the location at the time the photo was captured.
So, what does it mean to “photoshop” an image. Prior to “photoshop” becoming a verb, artist used to cry foul when images were altered in a material way. There are three major areas that are considered altering an image in a material way:
1) Extracting information from a photograph. Extracting something from an image literally means cutting something out of the image in any other way other than cropping the image itself. Extracting something from an image might be as simple as erasing a telephone pole from the image or something as great as taking historical figures out of an image.
2) Airbrushing something into an image is along the same lines as extracting. In fact, airbrushing might be the method used to paint over an unwanted portion of the photograph. Every glamour shot ever published in any modern magazine is an example of airbrushing. No, the models don’t have perfect bodies, perfect skin, and perfect eyes but after a talented airbrush artist or Photoshop artist has completed post-production they all are perfect, at least in print.
3) Compositing is the last of what is considered “photoshopping” an image. Compositing is the art of combining two or more images into a single image in such a way as to imply that all of the elements contained in the final image were present at the time that the image was taken in camera.
This is the same image as above except a that I started with a RAW image file and it was “developed” in a “digital darkroom” instead of in camera. Notice the increase in contrast and tone as compared to the “in camera” jpg image. Applying the proper color filters prior to black and white conversion increases the contrast of the image which in turn allows the clouds to be visible. Also note that I was able to correct for “convergence” using photoshop. Convergence is when the camera must be tilted up to get the entire scene into the sensor coverage area and this causes the camera sensor to be on a different focal plane than the image being photographed. Prior to Photoshop this type of defect was corrected by using a bellows system on a camera. The bellows allowed the lens and the negative to be on different focal planes. Note: that prior to Photoshop both the contrast and convergence corrections were both applied but at different points in production. To be fair I would tell people that I “photoshopped” this image and that is because there is a very small portion of a telephone pole located at the top of one of the rocks and I used “photoshop” to remove that from the print. However, it should be noted that even that trick could have been accomplished in a wet darkroom but then the image would have to have been called a “retouched” image.
A good way to measure whether a photo is “photoshopped” or not is to apply the following test. Does the manipulation of the image make up for deficiencies of the recording device (i.e. the sensor or film) or does the manipulation alter the image in a material way that would change the overall mood or impression of a given photograph compared to the impression that might be garnered by a bystander at the location of the event or scene being photographed? If your post processing does not alter the image in a material way then you may safely say that it was not “photoshopped” for the purposes of publication as a journalistic and or historical record of events. (It should be noted that the majority of photographs do not and should not be measured in this way or held to this standard. Artistic creation is not limited to only the recording of actual events and as such arguing the issue of wether art has been “photoshopped” or not is pointless. Art is art and journalism is journalism but even in journalism correction of deficiencies in the mechanical workings of the camera are allowed and expected prior to publication.)
In conclusion, when you hear a photographer imply that their image is just exactly like it was on the sensor of the camera, they are most likely stretching the truth. Sometimes people get lucky and everything is perfect. However, it is more likely that the photographer used settings on the camera prior to taking the image in order to bump up the saturation, contrast, and sharpness or that they post processed the photo and just did not want to tell you. Either way the pixels recorded on the sensor have been manipulated and for all intents and purposes they have been “photoshopped.” So the next time that someone tells you that they never “photoshop,” just remember that you know what they are really saying and let it be- unless they are really jerks about it, then ask them to see the RAW image without any adjustments made to it at all (that will usually shut them up). By the way, I have yet to ever see one of these RAW images produced in such a situation and you will not ever see one produced either. The reason you will never see one produced is that a RAW image is by definition a negative. By itself it only holds the potential of an image. It has no color correction, no contrast correction, and no sharpening. These are things that the camera does automatically when storing a jpg image. However, these things MUST be performed by a person on all RAW files. In fact a RAW file cannot even be sent to a printer for printing. Since almost all professional photographers use the RAW image recording feature on their camera then you can rest assured every one of their images has made a round trip through the “digital darkroom.”
The moral of this rather long story is that to produce high quality work, you need to learn digital post processing techniques. You need to know how and why to apply filters and plug-ins so that they are useful artistic tools and not gimmicks to stylize a photo. You need to be honest about digital manipulation of an image. If you are an artist, anything goes, but if you are taking a photo for journalistic or historical purposes it is important to never change that photo in a material way such as extracting, airbrushing or compositing. Last but not least, you need to remember that the camera is a tool, and an imperfect one at that, and that your responsibility as an artist is to let the viewer see what you see and not what the camera sees.
-- Enjoy
Recently I watched a documentary about professional photographers that worked for a leading outdoor magazine. Most of these photographers came from the film era of photography. One of the photographers was asked about their use of Photoshop. He was quick to inform the interviewer that he never “photoshopped” any photographs that went in the magazine. That got me to thinking about what his definition of “photoshopping” a photograph was and how he could make such an audacious claim. This was not the first time that I have heard bogus claims by “professional” photographers. Their claim to not “photoshop” an image, which most assuredly has been through a digital correction process, is really a form of legalese and is designed to elevate their perceived artistic talents while simultaneously denigrate other photographers that rely on the “crutch” that is Photoshop.
The image on the left is an in camera JPG image and the image on the right is a RAW image with contrast and color correction.
Before the age of computer manipulation of images, the photographer relied on a variety of techniques to provide saturated, color and contrast corrected photographs. This was achieved by selection of filters for the camera, the type of film, the speed of film, and the processing of the film. Most photographers, especially those working for large journals and magazines, controlled the filter and film selection; but the processing of the film for print was usually handled by either a fulfillment house or an art department and an art editor. In this department, techniques such as un-sharp mask, dodging and burning, and filters designed to provide a bluer sky, a warmer sun-soaked beach, or brilliant contrast, were applied liberally. Even the chemicals chosen to develop the film would be manipulated so as to produce effects. A process known as cross-processing is a classic example of darkroom manipulation in order to achieve a desired result.
In 1987 - 88 Photoshop was born. It was an answer to a prayer that photographers and graphic artists had had for a very long time. It was a cost effective method of doing the post production/darkroom work on a photograph using a computer. The method was fast and non-destructive to the photograph. At first, only a select few art departments could afford the scanners and computers necessary to use this new technology. However, with the advent of the digital camera and less expensive more powerful computers, the darkrooms all eventually died away and the photographer took control of the work from the composition to the printing of the final product. This revolution took place in less than 20 years.
I started this article off with claims that many professional photographers state that they have never “photoshopped” an image. Furthermore, I claimed that the term “photoshopped” was a carefully selected word designed to imply that no post processing of the image is ever performed yet not actually saying that no post processing had been performed. I now want to decipher or translate into common terms what is actually meant when these claims are spouted.
This image was stored as Black and White JPG in camera. In the day of Ansel Adams and group f64, colored filters would have been applied in front of the lens, at the time of shooting, to increase contrast. Then when the negative was processed and finally printed, everything from the chemicals used to how long the negative should be submerged in the chemicals and what paper it was printed on would impact the outcome of the print.
Cropping, color correction, sharpening, blurring, cross processing, gradients, dodging, burning, and contrast correction are the most commonly performed tasks performed in Photoshop. These techniques are direct descendants to wet-darkroom techniques and as such are not included in the definition of the word “photoshopping.” When a photographer says that a photo was “in camera” or “not photoshopped” he is not saying that the photo has not made a trip through Photoshop or one of the many photo manipulation programs on the market today. What the artist is saying is that the composition of the photograph is in essence what could be seen with the human eye if you had been in the location at the time the photo was captured.
So, what does it mean to “photoshop” an image. Prior to “photoshop” becoming a verb, artist used to cry foul when images were altered in a material way. There are three major areas that are considered altering an image in a material way:
1) Extracting information from a photograph. Extracting something from an image literally means cutting something out of the image in any other way other than cropping the image itself. Extracting something from an image might be as simple as erasing a telephone pole from the image or something as great as taking historical figures out of an image.
2) Airbrushing something into an image is along the same lines as extracting. In fact, airbrushing might be the method used to paint over an unwanted portion of the photograph. Every glamour shot ever published in any modern magazine is an example of airbrushing. No, the models don’t have perfect bodies, perfect skin, and perfect eyes but after a talented airbrush artist or Photoshop artist has completed post-production they all are perfect, at least in print.
3) Compositing is the last of what is considered “photoshopping” an image. Compositing is the art of combining two or more images into a single image in such a way as to imply that all of the elements contained in the final image were present at the time that the image was taken in camera.
This is the same image as above except a that I started with a RAW image file and it was “developed” in a “digital darkroom” instead of in camera. Notice the increase in contrast and tone as compared to the “in camera” jpg image. Applying the proper color filters prior to black and white conversion increases the contrast of the image which in turn allows the clouds to be visible. Also note that I was able to correct for “convergence” using photoshop. Convergence is when the camera must be tilted up to get the entire scene into the sensor coverage area and this causes the camera sensor to be on a different focal plane than the image being photographed. Prior to Photoshop this type of defect was corrected by using a bellows system on a camera. The bellows allowed the lens and the negative to be on different focal planes. Note: that prior to Photoshop both the contrast and convergence corrections were both applied but at different points in production. To be fair I would tell people that I “photoshopped” this image and that is because there is a very small portion of a telephone pole located at the top of one of the rocks and I used “photoshop” to remove that from the print. However, it should be noted that even that trick could have been accomplished in a wet darkroom but then the image would have to have been called a “retouched” image.
A good way to measure whether a photo is “photoshopped” or not is to apply the following test. Does the manipulation of the image make up for deficiencies of the recording device (i.e. the sensor or film) or does the manipulation alter the image in a material way that would change the overall mood or impression of a given photograph compared to the impression that might be garnered by a bystander at the location of the event or scene being photographed? If your post processing does not alter the image in a material way then you may safely say that it was not “photoshopped” for the purposes of publication as a journalistic and or historical record of events. (It should be noted that the majority of photographs do not and should not be measured in this way or held to this standard. Artistic creation is not limited to only the recording of actual events and as such arguing the issue of wether art has been “photoshopped” or not is pointless. Art is art and journalism is journalism but even in journalism correction of deficiencies in the mechanical workings of the camera are allowed and expected prior to publication.)
In conclusion, when you hear a photographer imply that their image is just exactly like it was on the sensor of the camera, they are most likely stretching the truth. Sometimes people get lucky and everything is perfect. However, it is more likely that the photographer used settings on the camera prior to taking the image in order to bump up the saturation, contrast, and sharpness or that they post processed the photo and just did not want to tell you. Either way the pixels recorded on the sensor have been manipulated and for all intents and purposes they have been “photoshopped.” So the next time that someone tells you that they never “photoshop,” just remember that you know what they are really saying and let it be- unless they are really jerks about it, then ask them to see the RAW image without any adjustments made to it at all (that will usually shut them up). By the way, I have yet to ever see one of these RAW images produced in such a situation and you will not ever see one produced either. The reason you will never see one produced is that a RAW image is by definition a negative. By itself it only holds the potential of an image. It has no color correction, no contrast correction, and no sharpening. These are things that the camera does automatically when storing a jpg image. However, these things MUST be performed by a person on all RAW files. In fact a RAW file cannot even be sent to a printer for printing. Since almost all professional photographers use the RAW image recording feature on their camera then you can rest assured every one of their images has made a round trip through the “digital darkroom.”
The moral of this rather long story is that to produce high quality work, you need to learn digital post processing techniques. You need to know how and why to apply filters and plug-ins so that they are useful artistic tools and not gimmicks to stylize a photo. You need to be honest about digital manipulation of an image. If you are an artist, anything goes, but if you are taking a photo for journalistic or historical purposes it is important to never change that photo in a material way such as extracting, airbrushing or compositing. Last but not least, you need to remember that the camera is a tool, and an imperfect one at that, and that your responsibility as an artist is to let the viewer see what you see and not what the camera sees.
-- Enjoy