It’s Guest Blog Wednesday Featuring: Stephen Johnson
The Intrigue of Complexity
Art seems rarely achieved through complex techniques, hidden features or secret workflows. This is particularly true in the digital era where the distraction of the software itself can make the creative process become stymied in menus and self-doubt regarding using the program to its fullest potential. Add to this a steep learning curve inherent in the current transition to digital photography and you have a situation where “tricks” can effect results more than vision.
Any state of technology in flux, and in demand, also produces many willing to share their expertise. The seduction of photography as a career, combined with the vast reach of the internet, has produced a unique opportunity for those interested in a platform from which to pontificate, some well informed, some anxious to be noticed. It could be said that my words here are such a platform.
My concern is the level of distraction I am seeing in people struggling to understand this new medium of digital photography. I’ve seen people expend hours and hundreds of dollars pursuing complex solutions to problems that really didn’t exist. They were sure though, that they had to follow some special path because they read it on the internet, usually from someone with little or no reputation as a photographer or educator. These “special techniques” are often employed before an understanding of Photoshop’s built-in capabilities are understood, adding inexperience to sometimes questionable information, wasting aspiring photographers’ money, time, and more importantly, their emotional commitment which can be heavily impacted from great effort and less than remarkable results.
Contributing to this seems to be a conspiracy of unrealistic expectations. Manufacturers often contribute to this by promising print sizes well beyond their camera’s resolution capability. The seduction of big prints from moderate files leads many to lower their image quality expectations, rather than raise image quality, which is what I think can happen with digital imagery. There is a reason large-format cameras have traditionally been used, to achieve large prints with great detail. That really hasn’t changed. Also contributing is the “Tips and Tricks” mentality that has permeated the Photoshop experience since the early 1990s. Solid image editing is far less about secrets, trickery, hidden features and shortcuts, than it is about starting with a strong photograph, knowing your goals, and methodically working toward them. Craft is not tricky; it is most often plain hard work and care.
In the same sense that many software packages have promised to transform photographs into “art” (without even realizing the insult that statement carries), many workflows, plug-ins and Photoshop Actions now promise truly innovative and professional results if only you will use their stuff instead of the mere pre-packaged Photoshop capabilities. While there is real innovation and sophisticated interaction with digital images made easier by many of these offerings, far more seem to be distracting users from the real issues at hand––making better photographs, heartfelt and strongly seen. There is a presumption that one can process a photograph into significance. Editing rarely creates beauty and saturation controls are not beauty sliders.
More energy seems to be expended on editing the photograph in Photoshop than spending time making the photograph. If a day ends with hundreds of images having been made, you are either in the midst of exploding events, in a place beautiful and complex almost beyond belief, or possibly you are being haphazard in your making of photographs, hoping for one or two to be successful. Casually seen photographs are usually casually appreciated at best. Intensity and strength far more often comes from time spent and care expended.
I would strongly urge people to see simply, and edit simply. Your photographs are your asset, much more so than your Photoshop skills. Those image-editing skills may well be critical to your craft, but they are secondary to your photographic vision. “Fix it in Photoshop” is a prescriptive attitude that often leads to making images not worth investing time trying to salvage through image editing.
——
Stephen Johnson is a photographer, designer and teacher. His photographic work has concentrated on landscape projects - exploring wild, endangered spaces, and human altered lands, while focusing on soft color and abstract design. He has also worked on refining the new tools of digital photography with the hope of empowering individual artists to use these tools to express their ideas. He has been teaching photography workshops since 1978, digital imaging since 1989, and served as a consultant and advisor to many of the companies involved in the development of digital imaging including Adobe Systems, Agfa, Apple Computer, Eastman Kodak, Epson, Foveon, Gretag-Macbeth, Hewlett Packard, Leaf Systems, Microsoft and X-rite. He is the author of five books, including his seminal “Stephen Johnson on Digital Photography” in 2006. He was named into the Photoshop Hall of Fame in 2003 and by Canon as an Explorer of Light in 2006. For more info, click here.












I am very new to SLR digital photography,I just ordered for a Canon Digitl Rebel xti,along with two books,THE DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY BOOK, VOLUME 2 and THE BEST OF FAMILY PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY which will be delivered in about 4weeks.
Please,kindly advise on the lens i should buy as i am interested in indoor and out door portraits and also wedding photography.Though my budget is low,kindly advise on cheapest options that will give reasonable results.
Thanks
Very well written for a blog post. Some interesting ideas. However, what frustrates me the most about people who write articles like these, is that they never give you any advice in the ’seeing’ department. I have mastered Photoshop through reading tutorials and books. How do I aquire seeing skills? How do I know that what I see is going to make a masterpiece? How do I find such views?
Thanks,
Honza
The process of making the change to digital is a daunting challenge for the photographer making that transition. (I began mine about four years ago, and figure I’ll allways be “in transition”) Photoshop is a very large, intimidating, scary animal in this jungle of transition, not to mention the myriad of other programs advertising for our dollars, and I, for one, have been grateful for some of the “tips and tricks” that I’ve run across (a lot of them from Scott). They have made my life easier, increased my workflow speed, and made the path to my vision for a photograph more clear. I agree that just pushing a button is not creativity, but just want to make sure that my fellow “trekkers” through this jungle don’t feel guilty or that they are selling out their creativity if they use all of the tools at our disposal.
Of course, getting it right in the camera is always the goal, but truthfully, who of us has not had a photo be close, but not quite, exactly what we thought we saw in the viewfinder at the time we took the shot. We still go into the “darkroom” (although it doesn’t smell like vinegar), and process our work, we just have different tools. With talent, and an educated eye on our viewfinder, and judicious use of our new toolbox I think we can attain our vision, and sometimes maybe take it over the top.
Joe
A really thought provoking essay. I have to commend Scott for publishing it since I think that sometimes his promotion of tips, tricks, killer, hot etc. contributes to the concern that Stephen Johnson addresses. I don’t mean to single out Scott and I want to emphasize that it’s impressive that he encourages this conversation. I recognize that it can be difficult to offer readers or customers services that will enhance their enjoyment of digital photography and at the same time remind them that techniques and cool gadgets or plugins can just as easily degrade an image as they can improve it. I”m sure many of people who read this blog know the feeling ( I sure do) of filling up as many memory cards as one can and hoping that they can hopefully locate a “pick” or two out of the Gigabytes. I’ve heard people say that the great thing about digital photography is that the “film is free” so you can afford to take photos until your fingers are sore. I think Stephen Johnson’s thoughts remind one that digital photography’s freedom has it’s own price. Maybe the best advice is that’s it’s more important to slow down and know yourself rather than “how they did that”.
-> Honza
I hope Scott and Stephen will not mind if I answer your question.
A book like “Photography and the art of seeing” by Freeman Patterson could help you developing your ’seeing’ skills.
@Dotun: The lens does not make the picture. You Do. While Portraits usually call for focal lengths of about 50-100mm (that would be ~32-60mm on a Rebel Xti) and open apertures, you are not limited to that. Starting with a large-range zoom may give you (technically speaking) “worse” images, but you end up with images that may be better composed. Also you develop a feeling for certain focal lengths - based on that experience you can choose your next, more specialised lens.
A Must have is definately the Canon EF 50mm/1,8 II. It’s really inexpensive but is great for low light and portraits. It was my first additional lens and was recently recommended in here.
Thanks for the honesty….
Thank you Stephen for your help in my “search” for authenticity in Photography. At my age of 62 learning all over again to be a good photographer, I must confess being an emotional whore at times in wanting my photography work “fixed” in photoshop rather than work harder at the composition and lighting.
This helps me keep on the “strait and narrow” lens of life
Grateful,
Ken
Great post, but just a comment or two … or three.
I was bothered by this quote: “They were sure though, that they had to follow some special path because they read it on the internet, usually from someone with little or no reputation as a photographer or educator.” To me, it reads as if those with “little or no reputation” must not know what they are doing and must not have any good advice. On the other side, it seems to be saying that if one has a reputation, they they KNOW. I think that is hogwash. Reputations come from others, from popularity, in many cases. Why does this equate to knowledge while someone new, someone fresh, someone who has toiled without the need for approval/reputation doesn’t have this knowledge?
Also, it seems impossible to understand software, like Photoshop, fully, as the program keeps changing, updating, every year or so. And many of us, hungry for anything new, keep updating, updating .. until we never understand. It would be nice if we either stopped updating or the companies stopped changing their programs and concentrated on teaching, education.
My last point deals with the final product. This post seems to suggest that a photograph/work of art, is best as it comes out of the camera. It seems to hold to the notion that a photograph must be of ‘reality,’ must show just what was ‘out there.’ I disagree, kind of. I think there are also some beautiful works that can be ‘created.’ This is true in other art forms, and I think it can be valid in photography. A photograph taken right out of the camera can, I feel, be the beginning of a process of editing/changing that can lead to something greater, something more intense, something more beautiful. I cite one instance, that of Michael Orton. Taking several photographs and using his film ‘tricks,’ I think he has created many beautiful images. The purist might say they are no longer photographs, but that’s another issue.
Anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking essay and for allow me to spout off at the mouth in response.
Howard
I think that the convenience and inexpensiveness of digital photography can be one of its major drawbacks. Initially I used to return from day trips with literally hundreds of shots many very similar and none particularly striking. Gradually I learned to take my time and think about what I was seeing, and how to get that into an image. Part of this learning process was going back to film, and really having to think about the final image without the benefit of instant replay. I’d encourage anyone who still has an old film camera knocking about to shoot a roll every now and then, to keep the senses tuned into taking a good shot without the benefit of histograms or exposure bracketing.
I still work on photographs in Photoshop whether the original was film or digital, but I find the ones I got right when the shutter clicked, and need the least work, are the ones I thought about the most.
Hi,
Nice perspective with the post, I am sure that it will be very thought provoking and many people will have opinions on the content.
I guess my take on it would be that it really depends on ones “goal†with photography, if you are trying to become better at the art of photography then it should start in the camera; simple. However if you are trying to get better “end results†I think that now in 2008, you can achieve this at all means available to us. So for me it is like it is in sports, a goal is a goal at the end of the game, but the great goals are the ones people will remember; the same logic works for me in photography. There is no right or wrong here, but if you are telling yourself that you are a good artistic photographer, but need 500 shots to get the “one†then maybe you need to meet and see an artist to fully understand where you fit in. But if you are not a self-proclaimed artist, then I think it is okay to take 1500 shots to get it right… if your shutter can take it.
As for the “had to follow some special path because they read it on the internet, usually from someone with little or no reputation as a photographer or educator.†this has been around since the beginning of time. I have often seen “that guy†with the kick ass set up and thought, wow he must really know what he is doing, I should ask him for advice,,, and once I do talk to him it is painfully obvious that he has a big wallet and little skill. I have also talked to the “pros†in the shops and found out that they only are repeating what they have read in magazines and the brochures and really do not know have the answers at all. And lastly, I have dismissed the guy with the simple gear as a beginner, but when seeing his photos quickly realize that he is better than his gear initially suggested. So my point is that it is hard to know what path to follow, more now than ever before.
All in all I really enjoyed the post, but this is a photoshop blog and even though it is a broad program I think most here are pro-photoshop to start with.
Here’s to 30 years of teaching workshops!
I’m 26 and I’ll be teaching a college course in Digital Photography this fall. Any tips? Ice-breakers for the first day? How do you get to know your students when they first arrive?
Your work is amazing, Do you think you’ll hit the midwest? ND might not be the best
but northern Minnesota/badlands are sure a sight.
Thanks for your time and post.
Dan Francis
http://www.DanFrancisPhotography.com
Great post. I live in Wisconsin and we experienced flooding. I had film pictures taken with my Nikon 6006 in boxes. I quickly grabed the boxes for safe keeping. (BTW do you have a plan if you have to leave the house quickly- what would you take? backup drives, cameras, lens etc?). After the rains passed I took some time to look over the film pictures. It was great to see everyone young again! But what impressed me the most was how good those shots were from that film camera. I have shot digitally for the last 5 years, but as I looked at those prints I kept thinking that there is no way I could have gotten that same dynamic range and great colors with my digital camera (Canon 20D). It would have taken much editing in Photoshop.
We are all encouraged to use Photoshop. Then we are encouraged to buy the books, add ons, etc., so we spend the least amount of time possible in Photoshop. We seem to be spending more money and time to deal with digital than we ever did with film. I will not give up my digital camera, but I am going to take another look at film.
Hmm…this was very interesting. I think some people may over use photoshop sometimes. However, photoshop is as much of a tool as a lens filter. I have never shot film, I have heard about it and the processes. I have always shot digital.
I know that 1. I don’t let little specs of dust, tiny distractions, or white balance or color really get to me. 2. That photoshop is one of my biggest tools and money savers out there. It saves me time from setup up and production. It also saves me money from buying a lot of different things. I do try to shoot everything before the glass but sometimes it’s not necessary. Photoshop is a creative tool that lets you do even more than you could do before in the digital realm.
I don’t have that same strong connection that a lot of old time shooters have about getting it all before the glass and no post production. Maybe it is because I never have felt it but it seems like a waste of time. It’s all about the final image and if a secret of the spot healing tool keeps a few specs of dust or blemishes off my subject than great! I will take it. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter how you get to your final destination but what the destination is. If it looks good, it looks good. Doesn’t matter what you did in between.
This post did make me think about a lot of things. I really appreciate it as well. But I will continue to learn “tips & tricks” to save me time and money. Not only that, but keep me in style.
Thanks for the post,
Tyler
Very interesting topic today and also interesting post. I believe that Stephen brings a really good point on one side but a very hard to accept side as a photoshop and all the editing tool that I teach!! I agree with taking time to set up and make it as good as you can in the glass. But as a photoshop user and teacher, you can make a wonderful pictures look amazing with a few minor adjustment. Example, the color correction, simply WOW!! I find that with the use of editing tools, you can break a lot of photography rules, like the mid day shooting!! Hey, take the photo because, guess what, photoshop can take that wash out colors and bring them where ever you want, morning, dusk, dawn…
Not to mention, but I’m a HUGE fan of National Geographic and Dewitt Jones. I don’t know, but those guys really impress me with their photos. Like Dave Cross mention, one session can be between 300 to 400 pictures and final product can be 20 to 40. But coming back to Dewitt Jones, as he mention in his DVD, they take 400 roles of films, over 40 000 photos for one issue of the magazine. I “risk my case” (sorry, I’m French Canadian and don’t know if this is how you write this quote!! Sorry if I’m offending anyone!) Also, as he talks about his famous puff ball photo, taking shots over the puff balls, under, side ways, angles… Then finally, he gets that under puff ball in front of the suns and voila a masterpiece. But then again as Stephen refers to, when he gets to a spot of best potential, he always think what is exiting here, make it right!!
So, I will confess, I take a lot of shots and hope to get one but at the same time, I try to place myself in the place of best potential. If not, most of the time, then bring it in photoshop
And, I read and try all the tips and tricks that the Photoshop Guys, and Layers, NAPP members… Because, my business is to teach the what the tools can do
And I have way more fun doing it then my students!!
Cheers,
Gilles
I have had the distinct pleasure to have taken one of Stephen’s workshops and to have had him critique my prints on numerous occasions in his Pacifica studio. What you get with Stephen is a person with strong convictions and consummate skills, both as an instructor and as a photographer. His printing skills are also second to none. I had a long conversation with him in Death Valley this last January about the topic of this blog and we agreed to disagree, not on the tendency to overuse Photoshop, on which we agreed, but on the topic of what constitutes a photograph. According to Stephen, the final print must be as close a representation of the actual scene as possible to be considered a photograph, whereas I subscribe to the notion that the scene represents a beginning point from which you extract your vision, and that is what makes it “art”, in much the same way that a painter comes to a scene and selects what elements of reality to include in the final painting. I am certain that neither is “right”, but it is always necessary to understand someone’s fundamental beliefs in order to understand the person. I admire Stephen Johnson’s work and his commitment to his craft and to photography as a continuum of developments. If any of you ever have the chance, I would strongly recommend that you spend time with Stephen in one of his workshops. He is very giving of his time and experience.
Claudius,I really appreciate your response to my post.
I want to know if the Canon EF 50mm/1,8 II will be good enough for event photography such as a wedding.
Tips and responses from anyone would be appreciated
Gracias
“see simply, and edit simply”…That to me summed it all up into one phrase. It really put the notion in my head to go out and create images now, not capture now and create later. Very nice post.
I have to admit that I feel that Mr. Johnson’s post is rambling an pretty much says nothing of worth other than the fact that it will set in motion some of the dialogues that will be posted as comments later on.
Actually, after rereading his post I am not sure I understand what Mr. Johnson is trying to get at. He talks against spending time, effort and money on editing and learning tricks “More energy seems to be expended on editing the photograph in Photoshop than spending time making the photograph,†and then says “Solid image editing is far less about secrets, trickery, hidden features and shortcuts, than it is about starting with a strong photograph, knowing your goals, and methodically working toward them. Craft is not tricky; it is most often plain hard work and care.” But in order to learn, to develop “Craft,” don’t you need to spend the time. Then don’t you need to spend the time to get the image just right, even if you are an expert? Doesn’t methodical hard work take time? Doesn’t an artisan develop certain tricks that are above and beyond the ordinary as he masters his craft that the apprentice would not know or think to apply?
Mr. Johnson argues against spending the energy and time to edit images and rails against the Fix-It-In-Photoshop attitude. If you extrapolate this to mean spending time on the processing of a photograph, then Mr. Johnson would be implying that Ansel Adams, who spent countless hours in his darkroom perfecting the perfect print was wasting his time. Yes Adams also crafted his image in camera and was a master of seeing, but if he hadn’t perfected his skills in the darkroom and spent so much time there, he never would have realized his artistic vision “out of the camera”. Viewing an original Adams print is an absolutely breathtaking experience with far more impact than a reproduction in the catalogue, even though you have done nothing to change Ansel’s “seeing” of the scene. What may not be completely representative in the catalogue is Ansel’s “vision” of the scene which you only really experience seeing one of his carefully crafted prints which he spent a great deal of time perfecting.
Would Mr. Johnson also care to discount the work of Man Ray or Weegee, who’s main artistic vision came from just such “tricks” of processing? Or how about someone more contemporary like John Paul Caponigro, who creates based on the digital darkroom? I don’t think that his composition of boulders floating over the sands of the desert would be possible to get straight out of the camera, at least without a huge budget for production. They are still art none the less.
I also think that Mr. Johnson’s comments provide very little appreciation for the idea of what a RAW digital file is. Inherently it is something that needs to be processed. At best if you try to take it right out of the camera, then you are accepting the camera company’s or RAW converter’s algorithms for how your photo should look. Maybe Mr. Johnson would feel better if we all learned how to set our Picture Styles and set our cameras to JPEG so that we got the results out of the camera as if we were shooting Chromes.
I think that Brian from Wisconsin’s comments point out that many people mistake what a digital picture is. (Brian, I hope that you didn’t suffer too much loss in the terrible disasters that have plagued the Midwest this spring and summer). Those old prints are the result of someone processing your images for you. By taking them to a lab, you paid for their expertise to process your pictures and they made decisions based on what filter settings to process your prints with. Whether or not those decisions were artful ones or not probably depended on the technician that happened to do the work and their level of interest and knowledge, but it wasn’t just slap the negative on the enlarger and there was your print. Or if you were shooting with Chromes, you were paying the film companies and the chemical engineers to make that decision on just how that film was going to react to the light entering your camera and set the color palette for you, unless you chose to cross-process the film where you would get results other than what was intended by the film company.
Now with digital, you are responsible for doing that processing and making those decisions yourself. What you see when you download a RAW digital image to your computer is the equivalent of the cartridge of film that you pulled out of the film camera after you exposed it and wound it up. The RAW converter is the equivalent of your photo lab where you used to drop that film off for processing. If you shot in JPEG, then your cameras Analog/Digital converter acted as the lab for you. Photoshop becomes the custom lab where you take the images that you wanted to blow up after you got your initial set of prints from the lab and there was one or two you were just blown away by.
It just feels that Mr. Johnson, despite all of his experience and knowledge is bitter about the nature of photography and photographic education today. Is it that he feels that his position in that world is diminished and he is not the voice that is turned to as he feels he should be? Yes there are a lot of inflated claims or bad information circulating on the internet, but I don’t think that you need to be Scavullo in order to give advice or help someone out. Do we all need Ph.D’s before we can give suggestions on photography or photo editing? I am one of those people with little or no reputation as a photographer or educator, but when David Ziser couldn’t figure out why his RAW captures looked different when he brought them into Lightroom, I was able to point out the obscure reason why. If I have an answer, but not sufficient experience, reputation or training, does that mean I shouldn’t share it? Do I need to have a multimillion dollar publishing and training empire like Scott or years of teaching and professional photography experience like David before I posted that comment? No. All I needed was to understand the problem, read the manual and have a little common sense to connect the dots and figure out what was going on with a willingness to help. Personally I hope that if I have a question that I need help with, some of the fine and generous people that you can find on the internet will be willing to help me out as well.
Well put. I read two other interesting articles recently that touch on similar concepts:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/masterpiece.htm (How to Create a Masterpiece)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins (Using retouching as an artistic tool instead of a mechanical one, and also touching on trying to achieve the best possible during the shoot)
Both are worthwhile reads.
“This post seems to suggest that a photograph/work of art, is best as it comes out of the camera. It seems to hold to the notion that a photograph must be of ‘reality,’ must show just what was ‘out there.’ I disagree, kind of.”
“This post did make me think about a lot of things. I really appreciate it as well. But I will continue to learn tips & tricks to save me time and money. Not only that, but keep me in style.”
I think Stephen’s point is to be deliberate about everything. The shoot AND the retouching. For the shoot, take pics like a sniper, not a drive by shooter. Unless it’s a high action event, don’t take a bunch of shots and depend on luck. For the retouching, don’t try a bunch of tips & tricks and have the “Hmmm, this shot looks good but could use something extra.. but I’m not sure what. Let’s try this.. nope, undo. Let’s try that.. WOW! I’ll keep this effect,” mentality. You should already have in mind what kind of effect you’re going for, then know which “tip/trick” to employ. At this point, its no longer a “trick” but a tool. You control it, not the other way around.
Response from Steve Johnson:
“David,
Thanks for your mail of your post to my guest spot on Scott’s blog. Could you post this clarification of my views so the blog doesn’t go running off in some truth in photo direction? As you know, I spend quite a bit of time on the subject in my book so as to make my views really clear, but that’s simply not what this column is about.
Your statement doesn’t represent my attitude about what is considered a photograph, but rather what I want my photographs to be. The are infinite interpretive decisions that are separate from cloning, compositing and faking an image. It is those compositing kinds of directions that I believe makes a photograph into some sort of digital artwork rather than any longer a photograph in the sense of the scene before the camera.
-Steve”
So I guess Scott kelby falls into the category of spending too much time editing the image in Photoshop??
To be honest while I respect the blog authors opinion, I don’t agree.
If someone wants to make and edit their photo then why not, That is what Photoshop is there for.
I doubt all images that you have taken came out perfectly. If any.
It sounds like you are a very bitter man and while I have read your opinion, I don’t respect it.
Simply said and simply brilliant. Made me think about my “assets” in a new light.
I’m a hobbyist photographer, and have been following Mr Kelby’s blog for a couple of months, but this is my first comment to one of the posts. A lot has already been said, and before I add my 2 cents worth, I’d like to thank Mr Kelby for sharing his experience, and letting others like Mr Johnson do that as well.
I work at a University. My job has required that I study a lot, and in turn I have the task of training the influx of new blood. I’m still young, and as such I am surrounded by many different generations of ‘academics’. A lot of the points Mr Johnson makes, are also made every day in the corridors where I work (although we’re not involved with the field of photography).
The single biggest problem is that students struggle to grasp or hold on to the “fundamentals”. They live in an internet-enabled society, where information is easily available, and “quick-fixes” are everywhere. If they struggle with an assignment, they get the answers on-line. They never learn to think the right way in order to solve the problem. When faced with a new problem, they try to convert their previous “solution” to solve this one.
Students are so wrapped up in figuring out which sequence of buttons to press, or which libraries to use, that they don’t understand what they are doing, or what is happening “behind the scenes”.
I know that photography has many different facets, both artistic and technical, and that mastery of both takes a very long time. I think that tools such as Photoshop allow people to skip over the fundamentals and jump straight into the artistic part of photography. Using my previous reasoning, the “fundamentals” of photography, such as composition and lighting, are simply left behind. A lot of people don’t “think” about what they are capturing. They simply capture, and then mold the photo according to a workflow that has been handed down to them (from the internet, or other quick-fix solutions).
I suppose it all comes down to what you want to achieve. If photography is your hobby, and you don’t take yourself too seriously, then it’s fine to play around with expert tools. I think that if you decide to make a living out of photography, or want other people to take you seriously, then you need to learn how to think like a photographer, and that requires a study of the fundamentals.
As far as listening to people with reputations, or people without any credentials: the one thing that academia has shown me is that you generally get two types of people. The first type makes sure you know what their title is, how many degrees they have, and what their latest research is about - they “show off” their knowledge. The second type has realized that the only thing worth knowing is that you don’t really know anything at all.
I think we should all be open to learning, and to listen to other people’s opinions, and learn from their mistakes. Credentials don’t really carry a lot of weight with me personally. I like talking to (and reading from) people that have worked hard at perfecting the basics, failed a lot in the process, and learned from that experience.
There is not question that “Getting it right in the camera” is important today … just as it must have been for Ansel Adams. Yet, for reasons not explained, he spent hours in the darkroom getting it right.
I saw an exhibit in which one of his images was shown twice … they were printed many years apart (10 or 15 as I recall) and the later print was quite different from the earlier one. Mr. Adams was quoted in the exhibit saying that he finally got it right, and that it took him all those years of experimenting with the image.
So I ask: ” Was Ansel Adams a bad photographer because he couldn’t get it right in the camera and had to resort to spending all that time in the darkroom?”
Is he not to be admired for his work regardless of the time he spent getting it right in the darkroom?
I think not.
“More energy seems to be expended on editing the photograph in Photoshop than spending time making the photograph. I would strongly urge people to see simply, and edit simply. Your photographs are your asset, much more so than your Photoshop skills.”
Stephen truer words were never spoken. Thank you for saying them here.
I take plenty of snap shots, but I’m working towards taking more “photos”. However, editing photos on the PC after they were taken is what got me into photography to begin with. More specifically taking photos and playing with them in software was the initial fun part, and the taking of the photos followed. I can see, and fully understand the art side of photography, but I don’t think we can exclude the skill and enjoyment of the digital editing either. It is far too much fun to take a normal photo and “photoshop” it into another completely different piece of art. Many of us have spent the better part of our lives behind a computer, and find the software tools to be the hobby and the photography the next step in the chain, not the other way around.
I don’t get it. Why is it more valuable to spend time “getting it right in the camera” than it is to spend time getting it right on the computer? I think that there is a plethora of knowledge having to do with “film” photography that is being imposed on digital photography that is causing a lot of confusion. Yes, there are many people looking for the “magic” button to push, that is the American way There is also, a hell of a lot of “bad” art out there. There is no substitute for having a “good eye” and knowing when to click the shutter. Likewise, this same good eye, the same sense of aesthetics must be present when creating on the computer. Everyone with a digital camera has become a published “photographer” which is good in a way, as it has democratized the field and amped up the volume of the discourse. Digital photography is a very new medium, it is in a state of constant flux and wide open for experimentation. Indeed, it is an exciting time to be involved and try to achieve some new heights in this new medium.
My constant motto that has stayed with me while photographing with 35mm film over the past decades has been:
” Don’t Be Afraid of Your Emulsions”,
Creativity in seeing with your third eye: don’t look for it- you already have it.
Try to spend a week without talking to anyone, allow your eyes to think without words. Seeing is a sensual experience of discovery…. Let the camera do the work after you practice with seeing and finding your deep silence.
Michelangelo often said: I am not just carving a stone, I am revealing what is already there in the stone.”
I would add that the style of photography dictates how many pictures you take. If there’s a lot of action, you gotta burst those digital frames! So it’s not at all unusual for me to have a great deal of pics in a day. After all, I can’t tell the cormorant to get back into position.
I’ve got to say I agree a lot with what Stephen says. I was classically educated in college. My photography courses were in 35mm film. We even made our own camera’s out of Quaker Oats containers. We were taught about lighting, composition, f-stops and in the darkroom spent endless hours trying understanding the chemistry. I really enjoyed it and it was an immense challenge for me which I have to say I handled fairly well. But, when I started my professional career as a graphic designer photos were something I used in layouts, not something I concentrated on creating. I have always been and will always be envious of the Photographers of my industry. The lighting possibilities alone boggle my mind. And I’ve often wondered in the last few years how they are making the transition to digital. It seems like a new world entirely.
I’ve been developing skills in digital photography over the last 3 or 4 years now and I have to say I almost feel a bit guilty at how simple it is to just snap and edit on the computer. I’ve wondered what has happened to that craft that is photography. Then I turned the settings on my digital camera to manual and actually started experimenting with settings and lighting and have found that I don’t need to do as much editing in Photoshop as I used to. I personally love the challenge of getting it right in the camera. Of course in my line of work it really does all depend on the final outcome of the image you’re looking for. Sometimes I just need an object shot to be used “creatively” in a composition. Other times I need a realistic photograph of a setting, person, or object to be represented as itself.
In any event, with the nature of the beast being what it is, the speed at which I need to accomplish these tasks gets shorter and shorter,thanks to our ever evolving technology, digital photography is the tool for the job.
Thanks for grounding us Stephen. I think those that haven’t had the privilege of a classic education might miss your point…but I get it all the way. But I do still love my Photoshop time too
Thank!
Well, I loved this blog! As someone new to digital (only about 2 years) I sometimes feel discouraged with not only the learning curve on Photoshop, but the constant bombardment of “tips, tricks, and techniques” from everywhere. It makes me feel like I’ll never get there from here — never be savvy enough with Photoshop.
Thanks Stephen for reminding me that I don’t have to be a Photoshop guru to make a great photograph.
Whoa!
This discussion has really highlighted one of the central issues facing photographers - where does the heart of our craft lie?
Is it with the seeing eye and the camera, in the moment of capture? Or later when we re-appraise an image and “work” on it in Photoshop?
Surely the truth lies somewhere in the middle? It’s important to make the best image we can - in the moment, as the shutter clicks. But, part of our craft, lies in revisiting the image and working on it in the digital darkroom. Both these processes call for judgement, sensitivity and a unique vision. Together they contribute to the making of a “fine” image.
As Steve made clear in his response to David Robertson, his blog was a very personal statement of what he wanted “his” photographs to be. Part of the beauty of being an amateur is that you can make it whatever you desire and go in whatever direction you desire. That doesn’t mean that you don’t work very hard, maybe harder than many professionals, but you do have the luxury of working to please yourself. Something that I have noticed is that the photographers whose work I appreciate the most seem to spend minimal time post-processing. Versace’s DVDs on Capture NX 2 demonstrate a very quick post-processing workflow. Furthermore, when Photoshop whiz kid, Matt Kloskowski, who knows Photoshop inside and out, talks about his own personal workflow, it is short and sweet. One of Scott Kelby’s most popular books draws our attention to seven steps, all of which are seldom used. However, those who drew our attention to Ansel Adams were right on the mark; the importance of his darkroom work is legendary. These Wednesday blogs are absolutely terrific! They have definitely helped me in getting a better fix on where I wish to go with my own photography
To Holly and Silvia, et al,
I don’t think that the craft of photography and making a photo has diminished with digital, it is just that it has changed. We as photographers can do things differently now because of the nature of freedom and information that the tools today provide us than we did in the past.
Holly is a graphich designer. Just think of what it would be like if you had to do a design on a computer that had no monitor. And you wouldn’t see the results until it went to press. That is a similar idea to what film photography was. And does that mean that film photographers needed to be more proficent in their craft. Yes and no. They needed to be able to know how everything worked, how lighting would be, how film would react without the feedback. Digital I think frees you to concentrate on other things that are part of creating an image.
While I think that Mr. Johnson’s idea that the focus needs to be on the taking of the image and less on the editing of the image had its merits, I think that it is a mindset that is limited and stuck in the days film. Photography’s paradigm has shifted and I don’t think that Mr. Johnson’s thinking, even though he was a digitial “pioneer,” at least expressed in this post has shifted far enough to embrace the new model which is digital photography.
I, too, have attended one of Stephen’s workshops and can attest to his great insight and skill. As an amateur photographer I struggle with capturing what I “see” in the field into a representative image. One of the great benefits I got from Stephen’s workshop was a greater appreciation that technology is getting smarter but is no substitute for the person holding the camera and doing intended acts.
It requires significant effort to acquire the knowledge a photographer needs to evaluate the scene, select the composition, lighting and settings that captures the optimal RAW image. Photoshop and other RAW processing software can be a crutch that actually inhibits necessary personal development since it gives photographers an opportunity to leisurely and comfortably adjust images taken hastily and with minimal thought. Sometimes that’s all you’ve got. But if your objective is Fine Art (and that is what Stephen is — a Fine Art photographer) then it starts with making the best RAW capture in the context of the place and the circumstances.
Technical wizardry masterfully applied to create “better than real” images that are evocative or provocative have their place. But Stephen is in search of the best representation of an actual place and moment. And if you are, too, use camera skills not Photoshop skills to capture as much as possible in the camera.
I’m amused about the concept of “digital” photography as something that’s apparently a new, radical concept, juxtaposed with the idea that manipulation of images isn’t artor it IS art…sometimes I get confused . One point I drew from Mr. Johnson’s post was that mere manipulation of an image doesn’t make it art. Another is “get the image in the camera”, where I interpret that to mean “get the best image you can so you have the most to work with”. Ansel Adams visualized the end result–the print–then took the best image he could so he could end up with the best print. The negative–like our digital images–had to be the best he could do as the best foundation for the best print. Remember, Adams didn’t sell negatives, he sold prints. In our digital world we now have multiple end products for our digital negatives–prints, web-based images, slide shows, collages/montages, etc. So, Mr. Johnson’s point was to get the best image in the camera and use the tools–Photoshop, plug-ins, etc.–appropriately to get the output you want rather than depending on those tools to draw the art from any image. It’s really hard to get a great print from a crummy image (but you can easily get a “bad” print from a “great” image by using image editing tools).
I think there’s a misconception about what “getting it right in the camera” means. A lot of the people commenting here seem to take it quite literally, that it means getting it right in the camera so it can go straight to print, no post-processing necessary.
From my talks with both amateur and professional photographers, shooters of film and digital, and in my own shooting experience, I take it to mean just spending time to make sure you’re thinking about composition, depth of field, light to dark relationships, and contrast and capturing that as accurately as a film emulsion or digital sensor can.
Thanks Stephen for a very thought provoking and insightful blog.
I have been guilty many times of blasting away with the shutter button and not really thinking about the image I need intend to create till I got back home and went through the ‘data’ (because it was little more) that I had collected.
Thinking about my own photography in the light of your blog, I realise that my biggest successes have been where I set out with a clear image of what I wanted to do before pressing the shutter button. I shall try and focus more upon this pre-visualisation before pressing the shutter in future. This is also true of images where I did a fair amount of post processing - the most successful ones where when I had a clear vision of what I wanted to do at the start - i.e. before I hit the shutter.
There have been a fair number of critical comments posted. I think that is a little unfair. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and to state it, but it is entirely possible to do without being personal and I feel a few of the comments here have crossed that line. Even though someone doesn’t agree that does not make another’s view point wrong - just different. Discussion is always healthy as it is the crucible of ideas, but should be done with due respect.
For those of you who do give so freely of your time and expertise please keep it up, for each person out there who comes back negatively I am sure there are many more who are inspired - I know I am.
I recently dug my old 35mm camera out of the dust in my closet and actually bought several rolls of film. It was time to see if I could still really shoot without photoshop to rescue me.
I almost had a sense of freedom as I uncapped the lens cover. It was also kind of frightening. I took the rolls of film to a one-hour lab and anxiously waited to see the results.
One thing I tried to remember as I took the photos was to expose very critically because these were “real” photos. I found that using a non-digital camera did truly make me slow down and make adjustments in-camera that I might have relied upon photoshop to “fix” had I been shooting digitally.
I get it, Stephen. No one should be offended or insulted by your very
philosophical comments and I am happy to have someone confer with me that perhaps a little more time shooting and composing is in order. Very simply, we are all reading this post because of our love for capturing the world around us.
We still love and need NAPP and remain, admittedly, addicted to Scott’s blog and the hugh body of learning that is provided by NAPP. However, our best work should not need much “fixing”. I love “tweaking” in photoshop but I don’t desire having a crutch to keep me upright.