It’s Guest Blog Wednesday Featuring: Dave Cross

A few weeks ago Scott invited me to start thinking about a topic for an appearance as guest blogger. I had come up with an idea that I’d been fleshing out when I read Stephen Johnson’s column last week. I’m telling you this to make it clear that my column is not in response to Stephen’s, nor it is intended as a rebuttal – if anything, it’s just interesting timing that my column follows Stephen’s.
I think it’s also important to note that after reading Stephen’s column I chose not to read any of the comments since I wanted my thoughts to be mine alone, not influenced by the comments of others (although I certainly plan to go and read those comments once this column is published). So with that bit of background information (disclaimer?), here’s what I have in mind.
In my travels as an instructor (I always wanted to start a sentence with “In my travels…â€) I get the wonderful opportunity to meet and chat with lots of very interesting people. Often our discussion revolves around two schools of thought: “get it right in the camera†versus “fix it in Photoshopâ€. When asked which approach I take I usually answer with either “it depends†or, “there’s a third possibility†(more on that later).
Generally speaking my goal is to get it right in-camera – or at least to get it really really close to what I want, so that I can tweak it a little in Photoshop. When I was in Maine last Fall I had the time to set up my tripod and experiment with settings and I’m pleased to say that the majority of my photos needed very little adjusting. I came very close to getting the result I wanted, right out of the camera. I didn’t rely on Photoshop, but it did provide some valuable assistance here and there.
Last August I had the pleasure of visiting Alaska and ran into a slightly different situation. We had taken a boat from our ship and had been wandering around a small town for a few hours when I came across a really interesting location I wanted to shoot. Just as I started to get set up I heard the call that the boat was leaving, so I figured I had two choices: miss the boat to get the perfect shot, or grab a quick shot knowing that I might be able to get what I wanted by creating two exposures from Camera Raw (which I did and I was very happy with the resulting photo). In this case I did rely on Photoshop to “come to my rescue†because of the circumstances.
So this is where the “it depends†comes into play: I strive to get the look I want in-camera but when the circumstances call for it, I take advantage of the tools available to me in Photoshop and Camera Raw to tweak my photos. I don’t think of that as “fixing it†as much as fine-tuning to get the result that I want. So, I change my approach slightly, depending on the situation.
But I think there’s a third option, and this one excites me the most, and that is to shoot with Photoshop in mind: take advantage of digital technology to create things you never could (or would be much harder to do) traditionally. To create images that combine great photography with the power of Photoshop. There are plenty of examples of what I mean, for instance photographers such as Joey Lawrence and Dave Hill who have “signature†looks that combine great lighting/photography with post-processing. [links: Joey Lawrence and Dave Hill]
Or photographers who capture separate images with the intention of combining them in Photoshop. Here’s an example from the work of NAPP member James Quantz Jr. He creates wonderful images from photos that he takes with the express purpose of compositing them later in Photoshop. [http://www.quantzphoto.com/]
I love taking multiple photos while I picture in my mind how I will combine them in Photoshop. Does that make the end result less of a photograph? Maybe in the traditional sense it does, but I don’t think we can discount this as a photographic art form: rather than attempting to capture the scene as my eyes saw it, I’m creating the illusion of something that never was.
I think there’s a place for all these different approaches: get it right in the camera, tweak it in Photoshop and shooting to take advantage of Photoshop. I also believe that there are different breeds of photographers, and that some of us really enjoy the Photoshop process and see it as part of making a great image. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking advantage of Photoshop – just as I applaud the goal of getting it right in-camera or making minor adjustments. Just as there’s many different ways to achieve something in Photoshop, there’s various ways to take advantage of our cameras and the technology that’s available to us. What a great possibility that offers us.















Hey Dave.
What a great post, and excellent comments too!!
…psssst Scott…
Dont forget to invite Dave to do this again.
Jan
Larry: ACR stands for Adobe Camera Raw.
Scott, (and Dave, and everyone else)
Great thoughts today, Dave. I think that a marriage of the old and the new (the camera, and Photoshop) should be embraced, but not replaced as the rule.
found this site today, and it made me laugh (not out loud, but how often do we ever “LOL”?) My favorite is the last one
http://tinyurl.com/5fwxux
happy shootin’
Dave,
I can’t agree more with your perspective on this topic. I firmly believe that we have yet to see the full extent of the opportunities for creativity offered by digital photography. Each day brings a new use for the tools, both the hardware and software currently available, as we the users learn how to creatively apply what is already available to us.
At the same time, the folks who design those tools are striving to give us more and more capability even as we struggle to learn how to best apply the tools we already have. It seems to me that digital photography has removed the limitations to creativity that were present in the old darkroom and that we are only just beginning to test the limits of the digital darkroom. I recently attended the Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts, a juried show held each year in State College, PA. There I visited booths offering photography of all types, both film and digital, and frankly, it was difficult to tell the difference in most cases. What was evident, however, is that craftmanship is still a major differentiator and that the need for good composition, lighting, layout, and framing is just as important as always.
This then is a long winded way of agreeing that getting it right in the camera is important, that visualizing the shot and it presentation are important, and that post processing can add that little extra bit of zip that sets one photographer’s work apart from another. Moreover, as I learned in discussing the work with my wife, what one person perceives as a well made, attractively presented photograph is not necessarially perceived in the same way by another. Photography is, after all, an art form and creativity is an important part of the creation of art.
I enjoy your blog and your tutorials, wherever they appear. I look forward to the next time you come to the Boston area and the opportunity to meet you in person. I’d love the opportunity to introduce you the the Arthur Griffin Museum of Photography, a small museum dedicated to advancing the art of photography and preserving the photos of Arthur Griffin, a photojournalist and early pioneer in the use of color photography. Arthur, by the way, was not above pulling a branch off a nearby flowering tree to help frame a photograph when it was not in the desired location.
Keep up the excellent work….
Emmet
Not to be the 50-something’th similar comment I really do have to say you have it right. The earliest you can nail your image the better off you are because you can put the rest of the tools to work enhancing it or making it something entirely new. If it takes an hour in PS just to get it OK it’s probably time to learn the basics!
When I first get a new camera I take at least 2,000 shots before I expect to get a ‘keeper’ … sometimes I luck out but I really want to know exactly what it is going to give me in any given situation before I put my trust into it. All the additional options with digital bodies makes that a longer but cheaper learning process.
As I have really gotten a better grounding in the options of PS (thanks to NAPP!) I have learned even more about using my camera to improve my images and reduce steps at the computer desk.
All that said, if the unique and powerful tools available in modern software don’t add anything to what I capture in my camera I am missing something.
You can’t do good work without knowing the abilities and limitations of your tools!
Bob
Hey, from a fellow Canuck
Dave, absolutely agree. I compare using Photoshop to using artifical light sources and filters. All are used to enhance an image.
Jay
Not about this article but a new “toy” for cameras for that impossable shot.
http://www.zigview.co.uk/
T
Andrew hits the nail squarely on the head. There is no right, because the art of capture includes many subjective decisions (lens, focus point, distance from subject as limiting or expanding view of surroundings, etc.) and the transformation of that capture to paper includes just as many subjective decisions (color space, paper type, ink type, raw converter, etc.). To me, getting it right in the camera means filling the frame with what drew me to the subject, selecting focus point to help direct the viewer’s attention to what I thought was most important, trying to wait for the light that best reflects what drew me to the subject, and exposing in a way that takes into account the limited dynamic range of the camera. After that, the sky is the limit as far as post processing to enhance the subjective decisions I already made at point of capture. I am not documenting a scene as much as trying to share the excitement I felt when I decided to depress the shutter release at time of capture.
Dave, Thanks for the great post. Your thoughts could not be more on the money. Photoshop is today’s version of the darkroom. It’s all part of the creative arts.
Dave -
A great article and as someone who does most of my “creating” with Ps and use the camera to capture the foundation of where I want to go - the article was really appreciated! I grew up in a family of artists and knew none of them to put paint on canvas in 1 stroke without making changes, grabbing a little turpentine, a paper towel, then going back to it - wanting to achieve the piece they have in mind. I also have a buddy who shoots race cars at the nearby track (Limerock Park) who often used the dark room to add his “artistic vision” to what may have been an ordinary photo. A quote he still uses, “It’s not a photo until I can hold it in my hands.” And, more applicable, “It’s not done until I see what I felt.” I agree with both.
It all seems so mechanical to solely rely on the camera for your artistic vision or perfect shot. A lot of artistic work is done in Ps - with all the great tools Adobe gave us, not just ACR. With all the photo debate, I’m worried NAPP will turn into NALP (National Association of Lightroom Professionals) and design / innovation will be looked down upon as it wasn’t captured perfectly in the camera first. I even see trends in the NAPP portfolios and editors picks to focus more on beautiful photos beyond great design or even colorful, abstract images.
I realize it’s “Photo” shop, but then what’s Lightroom for? Ps, to me, will always be a blank canvas with a collection great brushes and paper towels.
Thanks for another side of the debate!
Keep up the fine work with the other NAPP / PSUTV gang.
Doug
>I’m worried NAPP will turn into NALP (National Association of Lightroom Professionals)
Lightroom really IS the modern digital darkroom. Its also a product you may or may not agree is called Photoshop Lightroom (and its core processing functionality is based on Adobe Camera Raw which is part of Photoshop). In terms of most control, best practices, speed/quality, the ACR engine for rendering desirable pixels PRIOR to even beginning to use Photoshop is what you might want to consider. Lightroom is the processor, why not do all the heavy lifting before you even render a single color pixel? Why not do this by simply building instructions, simple small and fast text files instead of trying to burn in millions of existing pixels that are not in the closest, desirable state? Photoshop is a pixel editor, Lightroom and ACR create pixels. Often its very difficult or impossible to mimic this on existing pixels in Photoshop, and its almost always counter productive.
Case in point. Shoot some JPEGs under the totally wrong white balance and shoot a set of Raws at the same time. Try to “fix” the JPEG in Photoshop then try to simply white balance the Raws in Lightroom which isn’t even affecting the pixels (they don’t yet exist, you haven’t rendered them until you export the data). Which is faster? Which provides better quality? Rendering pixels from Raw and fixing pixels in Photoshop are totally different tasks, hence we have totally different tools. Use the right tool for the right job.
Hi Andrew -
To be blunt, I agree with everything you said. I do own Lr and use it frequently (since the first beta) - a big fan of the software. Perhaps my comments were poorly written, but it’s just my “feeling” that the photographic process is becoming too mechanical, unwaivering and strict - I thrive on the emotion, artistic expression and wild creativity. Of course I agree Lr is the digital darkroom, absolutely. (My question above was rhetorical, again, sorry for the poor writing) But it is in Ps (using since 4.01) where the imagination can go wild and create - well - anything, not just produce the “perfect” white balanced, color corrected, cleaned up photograph. I just miss the - start with a blank page and create something / anything. Approach as so much time is dedicated to photography, but obviously that is what’s popular so, I ought to put a sock in it.
Just my little perception that a purism in photography is overtaking general graphic design and more weight and importance is focused on Lr while less seems to be on Ps (hence my NALP comment). Perhaps I should stick with Ai - or - it could be that I’m simply jealous of all of you fine photographers as my captures suck.
I appreciate the rebuttal and apologize for conveying my message poorly.
Respectfully and with Warm Regards,
Doug
Dave (and Scott),
When a blog really catches one’s creative imagination, as Dave did with his third option “Shoot with Photoshop in mind”, one can begin to read intricately satisfying remarks committed from around the Photoshop planet ~ like I read this afternoon. I’m referring to Dave’s Wednesday blog, specifically his remarks “Mastering any tool (especially Photoshop) means more than knowing how to use it; it means knowing how to apply it to achieve specific results. You first have to know what you want to achieve - and why.”
Dave ~ your remarks found focus for some of my efforts from the past few months. You put in simple words concepts I’ve been putting into Photoshop with complex images (but not words). It was such a pleasure to realize that I finally have some hold on Photoshop. Congratulations!
If you’d like to see one man’s application of knowing what you want and why ~ take a look at:
http://www.geocompa.com/CrossCreativeConcept.pdf
You guys keep up the great work!
Joe
Oh… My… This last shot was something special…
Great photo
Paulo