Abandoned Train

[Manfred M]

I'm into week 3 of an ink-jet printing masterclass that is being given at the local fine art photography school. The instructor is getting the class to really push their images hard and spend hours working on the fine details primarily through dodging and burning (and a little de-saturation adjustment). The purpose is to draw the viewer into the subject and negate the impact of the surroundings.

This is pretty close to where I am taking this shot:





This is more or less the SOOC image I started with (just a touch of import sharpening) and lens profile correction.

[Wavelength]

The original image itself is great and your processing is superb...

[Donald]

You are right in your assertion - The hours of time in, for example, dodging and burning might produce what seems to be very small differences, but when you compare the finished image to what it was before you undertook your work, the difference is quite phenomenal.

I think it is a message we have to keep pushing on here so that people will try it themselves and see the proof before their eyes. This nonsense about going for SOOC images turns the photographer into just a machine operative instead of a creator.

[Urbanflyer]

You are right in your assertion - The hours of time in, for example, dodging and burning might produce what seems to be very small differences, but when you compare the finished image to what it was before you undertook your work, the difference is quite phenomenal.

I think it is a message we have to keep pushing on here so that people will try it themselves and see the proof before their eyes. This nonsense about going for SOOC images turns the photographer into just a machine operative instead of a creator.

I really appreciate your comment about SOOC images. Of course they have to be the best you can do, but the human eye makes so many adjustments between image and brain that SOOC is generally not what you saw!

[xpatUSA]

... but the human eye makes so many adjustments between image and brain that SOOC is generally not what you saw!

Not too mention the many adjustments some cameras make between what the camera saw and the said SOOC image!

[Shadowman]

Something about the original that pleases me more and I think it may be the desaturation you mentioned, I feel that by desaturating the gravel you've given the image a pasted on look, however the pasted look is more prevalent when viewing in lightbox.

[Manfred M]

Something about the original that pleases me more and I think it may be the desaturation you mentioned, I feel that by desaturating the gravel you've given the image a pasted on look, however the pasted look is more prevalent when viewing in lightbox.

In the RGB colour space, saturation and luminosity are tied together and in burning, the saturation increases, even when using luminosity blending mode. To counter that increase in saturation the area is typically desaturated. One approach that I did learn this week (I was aware of it already) is to convert from RGB to the L* a* b* colour space and do all the dodging and burning on the L channel. I'm going to try this when I have time.

[xpatUSA]

In the RGB colour space, saturation and luminosity are tied together and in burning, the saturation increases, even when using luminosity blending mode. To counter that increase in saturation the area is typically desaturated. One approach that I did learn this week (I was aware of it already) is to convert from RGB to the L* a* b* colour space and do all the dodging and burning on the L channel. I'm going to try this when I have time.

My understanding has always been that changing the lightness in L*a*b* keeps the hue more or less constant but does change the saturation. I just changed some blue sky lightness in an image from 88.4 to 56.6 and the HSV saturation went from 15.3% to 22.8% - is that degree of change significant? ...

[DanK]

Not too mention the many adjustments some cameras make between what the camera saw and the said SOOC image!

Indeed. That is what most enthusiasts of SOOC photographs don't realize, in my experience.

In the RGB colour space, saturation and luminosity are tied together and in burning, the saturation increases, even when using luminosity blending mode.

Certainly in RGB, but that's not what I have read about the luminosity blending mode, and it isn't consistent with my experience. Here is an Adobe summary of luminosity blending mode:

"Luminosity. Creates a result color with the hue and saturation of the base color and the luminance of the blend color. This mode creates the inverse effect of Color mode" [emphasis added; source is here].

I read this as indicating that the blending is using only luminance information from the adjustment layer. However, darkening does increase the perception of saturation.

Am I misreading this?

I don't recall the details, but years ago I compared the results of luminosity blending and switching to LAB, but only for contrast adjustments, not for burning. My very vague recollection is that they did the same thing, but I don't recall the details and could be remembering incorrectly. I'm not at my main computer, but I will try to remember to try this again.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred... your PP turned a nice image into a really superb one...

I definitely agree with Donald when he stated, "This nonsense about going for SOOC images turns the photographer into just a machine operative instead of a creator."

IMO the final judgement of the quality of any image is the finished result after whatever PP is finished.

This is not to say that we should not try to achieve the best in-camera image and just try to "rescue" the image with post processing. What I am mentioning is that most, if not all, digital images can gain from judicious post processing.

When I decide if I like the results from a camera or a lens, I judge from the finished, post processed image - not necessarily from SOOC imagery.

I sometimes wonder if the folks who are stringently in favor of SOOC JPEG images are not in that camp because of lack of PP talent or knowledge.

The same thing goes for those photographers who are vehemently against the use of flash and pride themselves in shooting only available light... Neil van Niekirk once summed it up in an intro to his flash tutorial, "These pages were originally written to help other photographers who struggle with on-camera flash. But they were also written as a reaction against the snobbery of the purists who insist on using available light only – even when it looks terrible."
https://neilvn.com/tangents/

[pschlute]

Great image Manfred, and has brought out an interesting discussion.

The point is in photography, there is no such thing as a natural image that replicates what we saw (or thought we saw) at the time we captured the image.

Photography is all about creating an image that is pleasing to it's viewers. That can be achieved in a number of ways, but attempting to insist on "realism" is a fruitless effort.

ps. I really like the way the contours of the train match and contrast with the hills in the background. This has everything to do with the way the photographer picked his shooting position to bring this out.

[MrB]

Richard, I wouldn't have expected definite agreement with "This nonsense about going for SOOC images turns the photographer into just a machine operative instead of a creator," for the reason that an important part of the creativity of the creator is applied before the shutter is activated: choice of subject, how to compose and frame it, lighting, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, moment of capture, panning, ICM, etc. Whether or not the creator then continues to apply creativity to the captured image should be accepted by those in both camps as a personal choice. As others have stated before, what matters is whether the final image satisfies the intentions of its creator.

Regarding the comment about available light photography, if you have a flash with you, then surely its light is available?!

Philip

[xpatUSA]

Great image Manfred, and has brought out an interesting discussion.

The point is in photography, there is no such thing as a natural image that replicates what we saw (or thought we saw) at the time we captured the image.

Photography is all about creating an image that is pleasing to it's viewers. That can be achieved in a number of ways, but attempting to insist on "realism" is a fruitless effort.

<>

I disagree, Peter.

It seems that you are using "photography" in a restrictive sense which excludes many classes of people who take photographs (even some professionals) and I certainly feel again like a Forum outsider, based on your and Richard's post #10.

A simple instance: woe betide a forensic photographer who fails to take extremely realistic shots of a crime scene ...

... In other words, the term "photography" is global and covers all aspects thereof, including people shooting selfies with their smartphones for instant unprocessed transmittal to their buds.

[Rufus]

Repeated toggling between the two images in Lightbox makes me aware of your skillful processing, Manfred. There are so many local adjustments and each one to a degree that it is complementary to the others. I am sure your post will be one I return to again and again as a practical illustration of how dodging and burning can be used and what it can achieve.

However, to temper that fulsome praise a little, I feel the bluer sky is a little too clolourful and does not work so well with the rest of the scene.

[pschlute]

I disagree, Peter.

It seems that you are using "photography" in a restrictive sense which excludes many classes of people who take photographs (even some professionals) and I certainly feel again like a Forum outsider, based on your and Richard's post #10.

A simple instance: woe betide a forensic photographer who fails to take extremely realistic shots of a crime scene ...

... In other words, the term "photography" is global and covers all aspects thereof, including people shooting selfies with their smartphones for instant unprocessed transmittal to their buds.

I do not see my comments as defining photography in a restrictive sense at all.

My first point was that a photograph is not at all the same as what our eye sees. Our eyes have no problem with dealing with extended dynamic range in a scene but photographs do. Indeed extensive dodging/burning of an image in pp is far more likely to reveal an image which is closer to what we "saw" than an untouched SOOC image.

What does SOOC mean anyway ? Even a camera's basic "neutral" setting will have applied brightness/contrast/colour/sharpening etc. settings to the raw data captured by the sensor.

Perhaps I should have differentiated between photography as an art form and photography as a recording medium (eg your forensic photographer). I stand by my statement that the aim of the former is to create an image which is pleasing to the viewer. That image could have been worked on for hours in pp or simply captured on a phone as a selfie. I make no differentiation between those at all. What I will argue against is any claim that the selfie or unprocessed DSLR image is more realistic or natural.

Regarding the forensic photographer, their job is to record detail. If the room they are photographing is dark they will use flash to reveal that detail. Unrealistic ?

[xpatUSA]

I do not see my comments as defining photography in a restrictive sense at all.

My first point was that a photograph is not at all the same as what our eye sees. Our eyes have no problem with dealing with extended dynamic range in a scene but photographs do. Indeed extensive dodging/burning of an image in pp is far more likely to reveal an image which is closer to what we "saw" than an untouched SOOC image.

What does SOOC mean anyway ? Even a camera's basic "neutral" setting will have applied brightness/contrast/colour/sharpening etc. settings to the raw data captured by the sensor.

Such cameras are a sub-set of all cameras. I've owned two models that only shot raw with no brightness/contrast/color/sharpening etc. applied in-camera at all. Among the larger set of cameras that have "SOOC" capabiliies, 3 of my 5 cameras produce JPEGs that look close enough on my monitor to what was shot. Not always well-regarded by reviewers who are accustomed to the vivid offerings by the majority.

Perhaps I should have differentiated between photography as an art form and photography as a recording medium (eg your forensic photographer). I stand by my statement that the aim of the former is to create an image which is pleasing to the viewer. < >

So, if I understand you correctly, your earlier claim has changed to:

" [Art] Photography is all about creating an image that is pleasing to it's viewers."

Regarding the forensic photographer, their job is to record detail. If the room they are photographing is dark they will use flash to reveal that detail. Unrealistic ?

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about forensic photography. I personally did not know that flash is the only form of artificial lighting available to a forensic photography.

Perhaps the statements are not as all-encompassing as they appear, e.g. if the room that the forensic guys are photographing in is dark, they will use flash or some other means to "reveal detail".

BTW, I don't recall mentioning "detail" in my comment; I spoke only of a requirement for an extremely realistic image. For example: the exact position of a body relative to surroundings while not necessarily being able to count nose-hairs ...

Pardon my pedantry, I have a thing about all-encompassing statements: I call it the Foveon Effect.

[Wavelength]

The most striking part of the adjustments was the conversion of the sandy soil, giving it a metallic touch that reinforces the content of the image!!!

[pschlute]

So, if I understand you correctly, your earlier claim has changed to:

" [Art] Photography is all about creating an image that is pleasing to it's viewers."

I would say that accurately sums up my view.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about forensic photography. I personally did not know that flash is the only form of artificial lighting available to a forensic photography.

I know nothing about forensic photography. The point I was making is that a crime scene photographer trying and failing (without artificial lighting) to take a picture of an object in a very dark room may indeed be "very realistic" but will be useless from the standpoint of evidence gathering.

[xpatUSA]

I know nothing about forensic photography. The point I was making is that a crime scene photographer trying and failing (without artificial lighting) to take a picture of an object in a very dark room may indeed be "very realistic" but will be useless from the standpoint of evidence gathering.

An interesting point and a very realistic scenario ...

I fold ...

[Manfred M]

Interesting comments on this threads. I was hoping to generate some discussions and this seems to have happened,,,

First of all, there are so many genres and sub-genres of photography that it is often impossible to precisely identify the genre an image belongs to. These can change genres over time. If we look at the works of Garry Winograd, Vivian Maier or Dorothea Lange; their works started out very much as documentary images but have been moved over time to the Fine Art genre. Photographs by war correspondents like Robert Capa have advertising (i.e. propoganada) undercurrents. Even Ansel Adams with his majestic landscapes was in fact often an advertising photographer as much as a fine art photographer. His work for the Sierra Club was targeted at influencing both high-powered people and ordinary people into preserving some of the magnificent landscapes of the American West. It appears to have worked as the National Parks were established.

The main reason for this (and some other postings that are sure to follow) are to get the members to think about where they are going with their image making. The vast majority of the shots we see here fall into the "documentation" group; portraits, shots from travel or walking about town, pictures of pets, etc. We don't see a lot of forensics... We occasionally see some abstract work or other images that could fall into the "fine art" category, if they were prints (very little fine art is displayed digitally). Just because they are prints, does not mean the images are fine art.

Some of the comments about retouching are interesting, but one thing to remember that while retouching will make a strong image even stronger, it will not save a weak image. The photographer usually needs to have a well composed and technically well executed image as his or her starting point.

I've done some more thinking about some of the comments and have worked this image a bit more...





It's still not where I want it to be, but it is getting closer.