The old expression “What you see is what you get” when applied to art should really be “What you feel is what you get” I had this experience recently at the Franklin Parker Preserve near Chatsworth, New Jersey.
Twilight in the New Jersey Pine Barrens is a very magical time where the woods settle down as night falls. This photograph was made on Chatsworth Lake, which is part of the Franklin Parker Preserve. On this particular evening the setting sun broke through the clouds to cast beautiful patches of light along the shoreline.
What the camera saw is this…
What I saw was this…
Summer Evening on Chatsworth Lake, 2013, All Rights Reserved
Which image is correct? Is what the camera saw limited by digital camera technology, or is the finished image modified to look more magical?
Does it really matter? Artists, no matter what medium they work in, communicate their feelings using technique and style. Regardless of what was unfolding in front of the camera lens, the peaceful and quiet shore of Chatsworth Lake, on this beautiful evening, is what I want to share with you.
Like this photo? Please visit my photography website to see more.
Interesting observation, Rich – problem is that it is very easy to ‘adjust’ images with a rake of free and accessible software so I suspect that a lot of what we see has been adjusted in one way or another. I adjust contrast and balance on images sometimes but not much else unless I’m trying to produce something other than what was actually photographed. You ponder as to whether or not it really matters and that is probably a different discussion. My personal view, however, is that correcting the balance is acceptable but changing an image significantly [as I did] requires some form of statement, as with the Photobots image. Nice blog and website, by the way. Alan.
Thanks for the comment and compliment Alan. I agree with you about changing an image requiring some form of statement. When I first learned how manipulate photographs there was a big “Wow that was cool” factor and the resulting images lacked substance. I’ve learned to ask the question why whenever I reach that threshold. If I can answer acceptably I proceed and that becomes the statement. Thanks again for your kind words and thought provoking comment. – Rich
I certainly think your post-processed image is more beautiful. As to the ethics, sometimes I shoot for “the record” and then I might post-process for clarity. For the most part, however, I shoot to illustrate a particular scene which I see as interesting or perhaps dramatic or exciting, or a different perspective from that which we all see. Then I freely post-process to make it more dramatic or more beautiful (in my eyes, of course). Are we then so different from a media artist who creates a scene with his/her media, style and vision? Many media artists work from photographs; others paint from models or sketches made on site, or in plein air. We simply end run much of that, creating a basic digital canvas to which we can then apply our impression.
Thanks for the compliment Ralph. It means a lot coming from you. I also agree with you 100% that we photographers are no different than other artists. We create a vision of our thoughts, feelings, and impressions of what we photograph. The digital tools we use to create that vision are just as valid as the tools of a painter, illustrator or sculptor. – Rich
Great post Rich! In a recent workshop I participated in we talked about processing utilizing your memory of what you saw at time of capture. This is exactly what you gave done, and quite beautifully!
Thanks Denise. I would have liked to go to that workshop.
Hi Rich, I agree with you that minimal processing is best. I think when we significantly change an image through post processing it becomes something different than a photograph. As a new member to the photo club I have seen that many people do this “Creative Photography” Again its a very subjective matter and I think some of the shots I have seen are really Cool. I just think that changing the image makes it more about your ability to use the technology than your ability to capture a “WOW” image. We and our cameras can only see certain waves of light and it is compromised by glare and pollution and particles in the air. So, yes I also adjust the contrast and balance to make it more like what my eye sees. I think your image is beautiful and if our image can remind us of what we saw that day then you have done your job well my friend.
Thanks Joe, I appreciate your comments and agree with you that excessive manipulation of an image for the wrong reasons never works. Showing off and trying to save a poor quality image are two that come to mind. However when done with a a great deal of thought and an artistic eye some amazing things can result.
Another thought on “original” images: Don’t forget that the image we see on our LCD is not original but rather the result of jpeg processing. Unlike film days we never “see” a RAW file which is a series of numbers related to the light intensity and color seen by each pixel on the sensor. This is a form of post processing: The color that we will eventually see is derived mathematically from the intensity of light arriving at each pixel, having passed through a Bayer filter. To allow us to see “what the camera saw” the raw file numbers are processed with the algorithms of the jpeg standard for presentation on our LCD or on our monitor screen. The jpeg output is also the result of compression of the RAW file data, and, typically, includes adjustments to brightness, contrast and saturation. This yields an image which is “pretty good” and which is a much smaller file but information about the scene was lost by the compression.
The RAW image displayed in Camera Raw (or equivalent according to the software being used) has had no processing (beyond the Bayer filter separation) or compression and, indeed, will look less bright/saturated/contrasty than a jpeg version.
So, technically there is already some processing of the original scene, even in a Camera Raw view. One is then free (as Denise suggests) to render it the way it looked to the maker (has to be subjective), or to improve (in the editor’s eye) on the image. I know that I became a believer in “post-punching” a few years ago when Denise took an image of mine which I thought was pretty good (composition-wise) and ran it through Viveza. It made the image much more interesting and “punchier”.
Fundamentally, it’s still an issue of whether one is shooting either for the record, or to convey some vision or subjectively improve the image That’s a binary choice. Post-punch or don’t. And, if you’re shooting for the record, take the RAW file directly to psd or tiff to avoid any further processing.
Ralph, this is one of the best explanations of the digital process I’ve ever read. Thanks for posting it here. One thing to also consider, even when we are shooting for the record, is that the choices we make before we click the shutter have an effect on the reality we are recording. Lens choice, filters, camera settings, composition, etc. all change what we see into the photograph we create.
I think your last sentence says it all……” it is what (I) want to share. I thinks judges and some viewers miss this major point in our artistry. Great comp!!!!
Thank you for the fresh breeze of your inspiration. You make my today beautiful I am happy to meet you today. Your photos are great!
Thank you Glorialana. I appreciate you kind words and am very happy to have made
your day a beautiful one. Enjoy!
Looking forward to see your creations again and again. You are Light. I am happy to have this possibility to touch it.