Below are two images, both from the same neg scan but one modified (very quickly -yes I know it shows) to resemble a studio shot , the other a horrendous on camera flash shot of my wife (my wife is NOT horendous :-)).
Which skill set is valid ?
- The skill in setting up a studio to give wonderfully evocative lighting that the sitter will find appealing
OR
-The ability to take a rather hasty shot with enough information to allow manipulation to produce an image which the sitter would find equally appealling ?
Both require skill and time , which could be charged for, and both give results the end user is pleased with. The latter option probably requires less photographic hardware (and maybe skill) and may be cheaper for the photographer . I would preder the former route but given the direction of photography does it matter, I know many of my colleagues at college would not see a problem with this !
This is a repost from the APUG lounge - it was removed as innapropriate to discuss the subject there, fine by me .
I believe making a photograph correctly at the time of pressing the shutter button is more important than spending hours at the computer fixing what should have been done right in the first place.
I like to get it as good as possible in the camera, and I would question whether these are really two entirely different skill sets. If you can't see a good composition, lighting, exposure, etc. in the finder, will you recognize it in post processing?
In this shot, for instance, you could have framed it as in the PS'd version in the camera, and that would give you more image area to work with in PS, perhaps avoiding some of the mottling around the mouth. You could have taken the picture off the wall to avoid the notch in her hair where it originally met the gold frame. A brush would take care of some of the stray hairs that got cropped out. A diffuser over the light would soften things up, and the result would look more natural than the digital blur tools. A higher camera angle would be more flattering to her neck, and that's something you can't fix after the fact. None of these changes would require fancy studio equipment--just some practice and vision.
Hurrell worked with a lot of post-processing and handwork on the negative in mind--for instance he had some subjects wear only eye and lip makeup to get the natural glow from the skin, with the intention of retouching the wrinkles and blemishes after the fact--but that didn't mean the images were not carefully composed and lit.
So say you've got this dreadful snapshot, and you've fixed it up in PS, because that was the best you could get under the circumstances. I think the lesson to take away would not be, "It doesn't matter what I shoot, because I can always fix it later," but "these are the things in retrospect I could have done better with the camera in hand and will think about next time, and then I can use post-processing techniques in an expressive way rather than to correct mistakes."
Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 02-16-2007 at 12:36 PM.
g'day digi
definitely do good photography when capturing the image
post processing never makes up for lousy technique
as good as you've done with this particular image it is still not a good studio portrait
where is the creative lighting? where is the expressive posture and facial expression? where is the lens selection? where is the rapport between subject, photographer and audience? where is the effort? where is the input from a skilled and creative artist?
where is the creative lighting? where is the expressive posture and facial expression? where is the lens selection? where is the rapport between subject, photographer and audience? where is the effort? where is the input from a skilled and creative artist?
Thanks for those responses. I can use them next time the wannabee pro with his 30D explains why I'm mad to stick with film .
Cheers ; Chris Benton
that's wasn't my point at all Chris, this is not about film versus digital, good technique at capture is good practice regardless of the materials used
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by Ray Heath 
