Why does using Photoshop on my negatives are me feel dirty??

[Alastair Moore]

I know that the print is where the final output is and the masters would do all kinds of things with their negs to get what they wanted from it. I do some/very little editing of my negatives at the moment but always feel if I go too far from the actual negative itself, I'm breaking some unspoken rule. But how I visualise the image when I shot it is not always what I get on the negative and so it stands to reason I should spend a bit of time in Photoshop.

For example, in my shot of the Davy forge:



I saw this with much more contrast, the machine being lighter (although the exposure is pretty much spot on to how it is when you see it) and generally a bit less "grey". I could probably do what I visualised in Photoshop but in my head I'm thinking I didn't start film and large photography to be sitting in front of Photoshop!

Am I being unreasonably harsh on myself? Do you strive to get a final output on your negative or happy to adjust the negative in Photoshop/on the enlarger?

Cheers and excuse my midnight rant/blathering!

Alastair

[Lachlan717]

Like I said in another post, have a look at Adams' "Moon over Hernandez" before and after image at http://rcodaphotography.blogspot.com.au ... nrise.html

Obviously, he didn't have access to PS; however, the image from the camera is not a whole lot like the image on the "raw" negative.

In one of his last interviews, Adams refers to using computerised imaging tools, and liking the idea.

I figure that, if he had access to PS back then, MOH would still look a lot like his original finished image.

It's just another tool.

[Walter Glover]

Alastair,

It is simply another chest of tools.

Going right back to the dawn of our craft negatives were seldom printed straight. In it's simples form, even selecting a grade of paper (contrast filter) and choosing an exposure time for density was a fundamental part of interpreting reality into a 'print' of that reality. Of course, it went way beyond just exposure and contrast. There was regional and global manipulation with burning and doging, different paper developers, 'ferri-' and loads of other indulgences of the author.

Much as I hate to quote St Ansel, one of his axiomatic contributions was: The negative is the SCORE, and the print is the PERFORMANCE. Get all the data the scene contains recorded in the negative within the parameters of what will match the printing paper and then begin to play.

I am looking at the photo of the reverse side of the Davey steam press on Plate 29 of David Moore's 1996 book on Eveleigh. It has a very different impact and message to what you have presented here. The metal has texture, mass and form; there is detail throughout. And he did his shot on a 35mm Nikon.

On first appearances, I suspect that you are not giving sufficient exposure. And I further suspect that the exposure issue may come as a result of metering to save stuff that doesn't matter - like the skylights. The trick is to decide what will be the hero of your image and then tailor the exposure and development to convey the heroics.

Whether you print through an enlarger or you scan and manipulate in Photoshop should then not make too much difference. Both methods are valid and 'purism' shouldn't come into it.

I am not suggesting in any way whatsoever that you should replicate Moore's shot; after all, he was shooting a plant in the process of closure and you are photographing a museum piece. I actually like the desolation of the once-bristling workshop and it may well be that your more sombre rendering is relevant to the current status of the space.

[smbooth]

Maybe this is where more experience comes into it, like choosing a film with higher contrast properties, and different developers. Also with images for the likes of David Moore and Wolfgang Sievers there is a lot more going on in the background (lighting) than we think. I find if I scan a negative it easy to adjust in PS to get a pleasing result, but when I try to do the same under the enlarger (were it counts as a wet printer) I struggle. But it does give me something to aim at.

[Maris]

I know that the print is where the final output is and the masters would do all kinds of things with their negs to get what they wanted from it. I do some/very little editing of my negatives at the moment but always feel if I go too far from the actual negative itself, I'm breaking some unspoken rule. But how I visualise the image when I shot it is not always what I get on the negative and so it stands to reason I should spend a bit of time in Photoshop.

Alastair, your disquiet about Photoshop is not misplaced. Photoshop and indeed all of digital picture-making is not photography. For those with time to read an essay consider the following:

Why do people feel compelled to digitise real photographs by using scanners? Put simply it comes from the anxiety that photographs do not match the pictures our brain presents to our consciousness when we look at things. This has been a major source of disappointment from the very beginning and it dismays a lot of people even now.

What's really going on? Remember, the mind blends multiple images acquired during rapid eye movements called saccades. This is "image stitching" par excellence.
Eye based images containing deep shadow detail are blended in the brain with images of what is in the highlights. This is HDR par excellence.
Finally the picture in our mind's eye is also composited from what we saw in the past, what we "know" is there, and what we expect to see. This is "image merging" par excellence. Optical illusions are really mind illusions.

Traditional painting, drawing, and now modern digital picture-making all reflect to a remarkable extent what happens automatically and involuntarily in our brains when we see the world. No one by effort of will can turn off this mental stitching, merging, and HDR-ing. It is no surprise that paintings, drawings, and digipix are so comforting, familiar, and popular. They can be moulded to flatter our perception of the world by merely reflecting back to us what we think we see.

To close here is a thought bomb: since we cannot, by effort of will, turn off the image processing that runs constantly in our heads the only way to see a picture of the world as it really is, brutal and unsmoothed, is to make a photograph of it. And by photograph I mean a picture made entirely and solely, start to finish, out of light sensitive materials. That's the uncompromising magic, mystery, and magnificence of real photographs. To turn away from this special vision, to flinch by scanning, digitising, and cooking in Photoshop squanders treasure.

[Lachlan717]

Sorry, Maris, but this is a steaming hot pile of precocious smelly stuff.

Taking a photo is always somewhat subjective. Perhaps a touch more literal, but still highly subjective.

Why do you choose the FL of the lens that you use? Answer: subjective angle of view.

Why do you use the film that you use? Answer: subjective preference of its rendering.

Why do you choose the f stop? Answer: subjective preference of DoF.

Why do you meter the way you do? Answer: subjective placing of the tonal range of the film.

Why do you use the developer that you do? Answer: subjective preference to its price, availability, grain, etc.

Why do you change development times? Answer: subjectively controlling the tonal range of a non-standard capture.

Why do you change the contrast of your enlarger/paper? Answer: to get the contrast that you want.

I looked at your shot of the moonrise at Sunshine beach, and you discuss how you tilted the back to exaggerate the foreground. That's cooking a scene. You shot the pears and glass with a soft focus lens. Unless the fog's rolling in, that, too, is cooking the scene.

The very fact that we take so many shots in B&W when colour is available also has a large portion of subjectivity to it...

[RoganJosh]

I feel that this topic is being overthought...

Alastair Moore I too used to feel that my images were dirtied from using photoshop, but it was mostly due to inexperience and usage of poor technology. There is nothing worse than seeing what was in your minds eye of the scene, enlarged on a sh1tty computer screen after being scanned on a flatbed scanner or equivalent.

Once you begin to drum scan and use curves/levels, masking, filters and sharpening in PS properly (and by properly I mean understanding every single aspect of what they do to your final print) combined with a quality printing system such as QTR, you will experience a whole new world of quality - beyond that of even the best chemical processes.

The more you know about PS and what your image will look like once on your chosen paper after going through your chosen printer the less time you spend in front of the screen.

[Warmtone]

I know that the print is where the final output is and the masters would do all kinds of things with their negs to get what they wanted from it. I do some/very little editing of my negatives at the moment but always feel if I go too far from the actual negative itself, I'm breaking some unspoken rule. But how I visualise the image when I shot it is not always what I get on the negative and so it stands to reason I should spend a bit of time in Photoshop.

For example, in my shot of the Davy forge:



"I saw this with much more contrast, the machine being lighter (although the exposure is pretty much spot on to how it is when you see it) and generally a bit less "grey". I could probably do what I visualised in Photoshop but in my head I'm thinking I didn't start film and large photography to be sitting in front of Photoshop!"

A couple of thoughts firstly the better the negative the less work there is to do whether digital or darkroom. I think you could have started with a better neg by optimizing exposure and using a different film developer combination to open up the mids and lower values. After years of trial and error I've settled on FP4 with pyrocat HD. As always personal preferences come into play but lots of people agree this combination works. Rodinal was a great developer with Agfa films but I never got a pleasing result with Tmax or FP4.

I find myself agreeing with the sentiments at least partially with everyone ..... Because there is no right or wrong it's what works for you.

Maris makes a brutally frank point re the honesty of film and Straight analogue processes
but even analogue photographers modify the raw image to optimise the final print....but perhaps they do so more honestly. There is always clear traceability between the the "score" and the performance.

With digital workflow the score could be an "opera" but the performance can be altered into a "comedy" because the boundaries are more flexible in the digital domain. Often authenticity somehow gets lost by digital "improvements".

I summary, a fine neg produces a fine print whether analogue or digital. Ideally the neg image should be modified as little as possible. By optimizing the neg, scanning is more straightforward with less work to do in Photoshop.

Just my two bobs worth!
Brian



Alastair

[Lachlan717]

"Ideally the neg image should be modified as little as possible."

Why?

Who made this rule?

Continuing your music simile, that's like limiting the number of instruments in the orchestra.

And this line of analogue printing being more a "honest" form of photography is ignoring history. Unless you're using polished pewter coated in Bitumen of Judea to shoot Positives, you're using a process that differs from the original technology of Photography. Where do you draw the line? Is using T Grain film less honest than "traditional" film? Is using high actuance and/or compensating developers less "honest"? Are dry plates less "honest" than wet? How do you classify digital negatives used in Carbon Transfer printing? Are the browns from Van Dyke process or the blues from Cyanotypes more "honest" than an Epsom print on fixed out paper?

Be careful - falling off your artistic high horse can lead to bruising.

[Warmtone]

"Ideally the neg image should be modified as little as possible."

Why?.".

Suggest you read my last sentence and review the whole purpose of this thread related to the original poster feeling uncomfortable with needing to perform excessive photoshop adjustments.

Digital adjustments cannot compensate for a poorly crafted negative if it's underexposed shadow detail is lost forever. If the highlights are blown important details may be destroyed.

Conversely a well crafted negative can capture the information necessary for the intent of the photographer to be revealed.

Photoshop can be destructive if not used carefully ..... so if the neg is optimized there is generally no need for anything more than basic adjustments and perhaps minor sharpening. The outcome is the photographic integrity of the negative is largely retained. For most of us this is important ....I suspect you may view things differently.

The value of the forum is a diversity of opinion and we should respect that each person has their own philosophy.