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.























Great thoughts Dave. I couldn’t agree more. I think that the “begin with the end in mind” mentality is how really excellent work is created, by using all the resources possible to get that result.
And something else I was thinking about… Being in this photography/photoshop community, we are constantly thinking in terms of shutter speeds, f-stops, and photoshop techniques. Many of the people who end up viewing our images ARE NOT thinking that way. They dont look at an image and think “oh, yes, they added that spotlight there in photoshop. They’re looking at an image for what it is, not how it was created. I think that’s important to remember when toying with the “get it completely right in the camera” mentality. Would we rather leave the out-of-cam image as is, or give it that little extra touch that is going to have the greater impact on our viewers?
Interesting article Dave. Can’t agree more.
I belive whatever approach we choose or think is better, we have to “enjoy” the whole process.
Ansel Adams apparently never got it right in the camera even once. He kept messing with the print in the darkroom for days. Rob Sheppard makes that point–that the print is where the original shot is performed–in his new book; “Epson Complete Guide to Digital Printing” (July 2008).
Hey Dave – Thanks for the post. I have always tried to stay with the mindset of getting it “right” in the camera – But lately I have some of my older images pop back thanks to some excellent teachers like the PS guys.
Like the crop on your pic – looks like a serious handlebar mustache !!
Great post Dave, I have been trying to get it right in the camera for the last 7 mos. but as it turns out I find myself making some sort of an adjustment in post 95% of the time. Hey, i am a newbie photog I have an excuse.
-Bob
(Boston)
Hi Dave, as always your common sense approach is right on. Digital has changed Photography forever, I think for the better. We are in an era of unlimited possibilities. Digital Camera’s have matured, blossomed and now are affordable to everyone.
Software has also done the same, Photoshop, Lightroom and all the other great tools for photographers make today’s photography an exciting time for all of us.
It’s no wonder why all you “photoshop guys” are having so much fun!
Dave,
Great post. Just as there are many styles to painting on canvas, there are many styles of painting with 0’s and 1’s. Whether you use oil or charcoal or crayons or a digital sensor and a computer it is the final product that matters. And ultimately it is the photographer who has to be satisfied with that work. No one style is the “best”. Pleasing work is accomplished in many different ways. That is what keeps photography interesting and fun.
Thanks again and I look forward to Photoshop TV every week.
Martin
Thanks Dave! I’m working fast and furious to become more proficient at using the settings to get the picture I want in camera but so glad to hear that you rely on photoshop in the right moments.
Think you nailed it Dave.
Why restrict oneself to 18th century methods, both in thinking and application, when we are now living in the 21st century will all the technological opportunities it affords.
Dave,
Great article! Like those previous, I always try to make it right in the camera, but in the end have to do some post processing. I’m new to Photoshop, so I don’t know a lot of the techniques, but thanks to you, Matt and Scott I have some great teachers! My biggest concern is shooting in Raw, though all the information is there, when I import them into Lightroom my images lack the snap that the LCD screen shows. So, I’m always making some corrections. Is that normal … ?
Again, great information.
Dennis
Just shows you the power of RAW and ACR to develop and process your photography from a good image to a great image. Thank you very both Dave for putting this together.
Next time someone asks me why shout RAW. I will point them here for great information and inspiration! Thanks
So, having read both Stephen’s take and now Dave’s take on the subject I have a comment. As an amateur film photographer for the better part of 30-years with a cross over to digital about 3-years ago I don’t see what the big deal is. As film photographers didn’t we always strive to get it right in the camera? When we didn’t, those of us with darkroom skills, didn’t we always increase exposure times where needed or dodge and burn to tweak a certain area in the photo without affecting the entire photograph? As digital photographers Camera Raw and Photoshop now serve as our dark room and once again we increase exposure where needed as well as perform the equivalent of dodging and burning to tweak. In some cases it may even be a little more difficult to get the exact image you were looking for than it would have been using the old school darkroom because there are so many options and variables within Camera Raw and Photoshop. We all have our own brain and our own way of doing things. None right, none wrong. Just different. Fortunately we all have this outlet to educate ourselves by reading the thoughts and ideas of such bright individuals as Stephen Johnson, Dave Cross and Scott Kelby. If those of us who read it take away even one thing that makes us think differently about what we do or how we do it (the Hmmm … I never thought of that … moment) then hasn’t this blog been 100% successful? I say Bravo on two very fine posts and two very fine points of view.
Dennis
I like to think of Photoshop as a digital developing solution. When you shoot film nothing is visible until the film is developed. The same is true for digital. The difference is that the camera has it’s own developer (think of it as the drug store) or you can use something like Photoshop to develop the image yourself. To me, “getting it right in the camera” means getting the basic elements like composition and lighting correct, “the notes of the score” using an Ansel Adams phrase. Photoshop is used to create the final performance. People who slavishly rely only on their camera to develop their digital images are missing out.
Yours is a very reasoned approach, with room for everyone to equally express visually what they experience personally. Thank you for that.
My experience has been that I see a “light†that I want to express through my photography. I have had friends who were with me during shoots, tell me that they didn’t see it until they saw the final image. If I understand the technology correctly, the camera only captures a somewhat limited version of what the human eye can see. Photoshop and Lightroom give me the tools to bring back what I see in a form that enables me to share it with others. The combination of camera and Photoshop/Lightroom together, is more powerful, and offers much greater potential for creative expression, than any of them can offer separately.
Thank you, and all the folks you work with, for the generous sharing of your knowledge and gifts. It continues to be my primary resource for developing my art, and my craft.
Hi Dave
Once again you nailed it!
Your post was really inspiring to me as an amateur photographer. I’m a working musician and in that particular business people tend to have the same opinion of analog vs. digital. Maybe they should just read your post here and hopefully they’ll see the light and combine the two things.
Thanks again
Kræn
Denmark
Well stated, Dave. I can’t add much to the previous comments except to say that if not for Photoshop, I wouldn’t own a DSLR. I love taking pictures and Photoshop simply kicks up the enjoyment level — I’m not particularly good at photography or PS, but at 59 years old I’m having the time of my life experiencing the dynamics of both.
Hey Dave,
Great post. I think the most important thing for any artist, as you have said here in a very logical, calm and understated way, is to be flexible and have an open mind to all of the possibilities that present themselves to you.
I think that this is the most important difference between your post and Stephen’s, as he came across as being rigid and inflexible in his thinking.
Thanks for your thoughtful and well considered insight.
Aloha Dave,
I really like your post. As with the first part of your reading, I make every attempt to become a better photographer so I don’t have to fix it in Photoshop even though people tell me that I do very well with that digital tool. AS for the the second part, I don’t know that I have enough creative juices to think far enough ahead to create such wonderful works of art from different photographs.
I hope to learn a lot more of getting it right in the camera between Aug 9 & 16.
See ya in a few weeks.
Mike
hi dave,
perfect point and well explained. if i think back to “good old lab & dark room” days, i have produced some crazy artistic results, which were “fake”, as they were produced in post. playing with different films, chemicals and processing times, different ways of drying, changes while enlarging, it all created amazing photographic art. today, we do the same in photoshop. and i am glad i can actually do it in bright daylight!
sometimes i feel, people who “have to” get it all right in camera might not be too comfortable with photoshop. of course, i personally also do everything i can to get it right in camera, but for other reasons: it saves me a lot of time in post, and it pushes me as a photographer, instead of becoming a retoucher.
if we look at some of the all-time greatest photographers, many heavily relied on their labs. without, their original exposures would never have made the galleries, in which they are celebrated today.
Well said Dave…..I agree with everything you said, I’ve always strived to “get it right in the camera”, that’s what a professional does, but getting it right in the camera doesn’t mean that it’s complete……….it’s just right.
Joe
Hi Dave – Thanks for your post. I agree with you – that’s what is so great about today! There is a place for everyone, all types of photographers and photoshoppers. And it all depends on the photo which approach is better. Done correctly, I love HDR, but at the same time, I appreciate a photographer’s time to get it right in the camera.
Excellent comment, Dave. The “photographic arts” are in a particularly exciting period whether your focus is on “capturing the moment” or “creating the moment”.
Thanks Dave for a really balanced and positive post about the creative possibilities of PS when used responsibly. As a working landscape photographer, I agreed completely with Stephen’s post last week about the overuse of PS and the importance of developing photographic vision.
Yet I wondered if many would interpret it in a way that sounded disparaging to those who use PS to “interpret” their vision. Sure Ansel spent countless hours in the darkroom re-interpreting his best images, but the “score” as he called it was already a masterpiece, and he simply wanted to present the best performance possible with the tools at hand. We now have infinitely more advanced tools, yet the goal should remain the same – expressing our unique vision through photography in a way that draws attention to the message, not to the tools used to create it.
Great post!
“shoot with Photoshop in mind” – I love that. I started out with doing videography and I was always taught, “shoot for the edit.” It pretty much applies to photography. Why add a warming filter when you can save money and just throw that effect in with photoshop?
Thanks Dave.
Very diplomatic (and Canadian) post; I agree totally.
Really not much to add you really expressed it so well.
Just this thought;
I consider PS just as important as my lens, or even my flash. It is just another tool I use to get the end result; because you can argue that the use of a flash is also manipulation (of light). Nonetheless it is maybe the most versatile and essential part of my kit since I am not always able to take the time needed to get it right.
However I must confess that, when that “mega-pixel moment†pops up, I often would rather chance at getting the shot and spending some time with PS to fix it at home rather than take the time and look at the situation and get it right in the first place. So I guess honestly that PS is not making me become a superior photographer! Any tips on how to be better at this? Is there a PS rehab reality show out there I could join?
Great advice, Dave. And I agree totally.
To take the argument for (or against) the third option, when you start creating these kinds of images, you then have to consider the realism of the image. A lot of these images look surreal, which may be an intended effect or at least a tolerated compromise. A bit more work of trial and error happens if you want to make the images look realistic. If you’re combining images that were taken in different lighting conditions, etc., you may run into difficulty making the images work together realistically.
That’s where I believe it comes back to the first two options. If you’re intending to create a realistic image via the third option, do you work to get the best source files as possible in-camera, or do you rely on Photoshop to help you compile the images?
Just offering my thoughts. Thanks again!
Great post Dave!
Scott, why don’t you organise a column to the right where we can see all Wednesday Guest Blogs? The Wednesday Guest Blogs are usually longer and more the an article than the usual post (totaly understandable since you can’t have the time to write those kinds of post every day). Just a sugestion.
Take care
Mattias
Great post. Right on the money. And thanks for introducing me to Dave Hill’s work – just unbelievable.
VERY WELL SAID Dave,I take a lot of pictures of nature ,wild animals and birds, often i just have the time to put my tripod down and take a picture,because i cannot ask a bird or the wild animal to pose for me.with photoshop i can fix some of the problem without touching the main part of the photo.thank you very much for all your tips and tricks on how to use photoshop.you and matt and scott make a great team.
I,realy enjoyed your books very well done,clean and simple.
Great Job Fellow Canadian
You bet’h you!
Yep, as mention from Steven and you, I tried my best to get it right in the camera but no matter what, the photo will go through Camera Raw from either PS or LR if it is worth it.
Just a perfect example, last weekend we decided to go in Banff for the day. So, since we are in the middle of the day, I had no choice to shoot and think what should I set my camera in order to have the best results in PS? As my wife look at the photos in the camera on are way back home, I will quote her!! “Those are terrible, all those photos and now we have to look at those for memories!!” With a wonderful women tone!!
After working on them, yesterday while at work, the phone rings and my wife says, I need to apologize to you
PRICELESS!!
Also to add, like you mention about the boat his leaving. Try setting up or best yet, try different camera settings when you have two excited children running around the edge of the 2180 meters (yeah, Canadian) cliff!! So, thanks camera raw, PS and LR.
Cheers,
Gilles
Dave
Well done. Bless you. As my poppa use to say, ” you have to slice spam pretty thin before you don’t have two sides”.
And so it goes, Art and the photograph, film and digital. It is commonly known in the “church world” the last generation (church movement) always persecutes the new generation (new movement)
Ken from KY
http://kblawson.wordpress.com/
Hey Dave greetings from Canada.
Great insight from you and the other posters. For me it’s a process of learning to the fundamentals (i.e. how to get it right in camera and how to use LR or ACR to tweak the image in less than 2 minutes). I feel that the better you are at the basics the more creative you will become when you choose to the break the rules. We see this with the rules of composition all the time… learn the rules first and then break them and you’ll truly become a creative photographer.
You’re only limited by what you choose not to learn.
Scott and Dave,
I am so glad this guest blog came right after Stephen Johnson’s. Last week, Johnson’s post got me to a thinkin’ about photoshop and do I realy on it too much. I am new to this whole digital darkroom world. (Started last October with my first purchase…CS3 and 7Point System)
At first, Photoshop helped correct images I had taken that were slightly under exposed, you know that slight dingy cast to them. Enough manipulations of them in Photoshop…I was begining to recognize the propper exposure in camera. I could still make my learning curve mistakes and know I hadn’t lost the shot. Or like Dave said be quick and get a shot instead of being foiled by nature.
This was true for every aspect of light that you can capture in camera. I saw it better, because of the changes I was making in photoshop. Recently, I went to Maine in April and took tons of shots. There was very little I was doing to them in the software because I was setting my camera to the settings. This was all a short 6 months after manipulationg my first image in Photoshop.
I believe Photoshop is a great way to train your eye to see the light and what is needed to be set on your camera. In other words…and ADOBE hear this…I am a much better photographer today because of what I learned in Photoshop.
Now, as for composite shot building…way WAY over my head…give a gal a break! Let me pass my first year mark before expecting me to place an elephant at the car wash.
Thanks,
Rosanne
PS- my Maine shots if you are interested can be seen here http://www.flickr.com/photos/shrewshutters/sets/72157604953352802/
one more thought: who said, the results have to look “real”?
all that matters is the final result. create it from scratch in photoshop, or print an photograph untouched directly, or any combination thereof, if it represents the artists vision, its perfect.
there is no right or wrong, the rest is in the eyes of the viewer – and – a big question of taste and personal preference.
Spot on Dave.
I think though, with the advent of digital and scores of people getting into Photoshop that it is an evolution of thought. Those just starting in photography are not as good as getting it right in camera and DO shoot with the thought of “I’ll fix it in Photoshop”. It helps them learn Photoshop skills. After enough time behind the camera, and perhaps too many hours at the computer they learn to get it right in camera, and then use Photoshop to only enhance the images as needed.
The next step in the evolution is to take it the extra mile as in the third option that you’ve presented.
What a great post Dave! I agree with most of what has already been written in the comments section.
Frankly, every hobby has its purists, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Whether it’s audio, music, photography, haircutting, or whatever. The purists like to “get as correct as possible in camera” and others don’t care.
It’s the final image that speaks for itself (or not), and everything else is just a tool to get there. For example, I love the sticky note with a tack through it right above this field where we enter our comments. Doesn’t bother me at all that it was composed in photoshop. Would it be a better sticky note if it was photographed on white seamless background with perfect exposure and everything was done correctly “in camera”?
I think not.
Great great post!
BTW, I missed you on PSUTV this week, and hope you’re having a lovely time in Canada, aye?
-Mark
Great post Dave. It resonated well with me yet I’ve never been able to express it so articulately.
I consider myself more a “graphics artist” than a “photographer” so for me; I use the camera as a supporting element of my Photoshop work, not the other way around. I’m happy to hear I’m not the odd man out in this approach.
Great post Dave. I couldn’t agree with you more. Photography is an art form and the vision of the artist is what makes every image unique. However that person chooses to interpret their vision is the correct way. Personally, I try to get it right in camera but I also love the creative possibilities that await in PS. There are no rules in art, for it is a creative process with endless opportunities. As with any art form there are purists, and then there is the rest of us. People need to be okay with “their process” of the final image and not be so concerned about what others think, and not feel the need to defend their use of PS. Like everything in life, follow your heart and your own lead, and you can’t go wrong.
Great post Dave! I think your post as well as many of the comments illustrate the power of digital imaging. I have always tried to blend getting the best possible image in the camera (sometimes like your Alaska shot the best possible is mediocre) with *finishing* in Lightroom/Photoshop. I love your point about if your visualized image is a broader spectrum that the camera can directly capture, follow the mantra capture the best possible in camera image the finish the vision in the digital workflow. To me thinking this way goes way beyond the fix it in Photoshop later, to finishing the image with whatever tools are needed. For some images that means nothing more required, for some it may very well mean dual processing the RAW file, or filling in some shadow detail, or some other fix to make the photograph more pleasing to the ulitmate viewer.
I couldn’t agree more Dave, PS is part of the creative process when you want it to be. Or it can just be a helpful ‘blemish remover’ if you are more interested in working right out of the camera. Thanks for a good perspective of it’s usefullness. -M
Hi Mattias:
Thanks for the idea! Fred, my in-house Web guru, just updated the site with that, so now right up in the title area (to the immediate right of where it shows how comments have been posted), you’ll see the category “Guest Blogger.” Click on that, and you’ll get just the guest blog posts.
Thanks again for the idea, and thank to Fred for getting it up and running so quickly.
-Scott
I have no problem with including PS as part of your vision. I look at it as enhancemnt what anoys me is when I dont take the time to get it right in
camera and I have to waist time fixing in PS. As for multiple photos I once marvled at it when folks like Pete Turner whould create an image back in the day. Now not so much.
Thaks for the Post
David
Hey Dave, great article. I totally agree that keeping the end in mind is very important. For amateurs, photoshop can be a total help. I sometimes take pictures, and am very unhappy with the results. This could be because I shot when the light was harsh, or that I had camera shake, etc. But, I am less worried now since I have ACR & Photoshop to help make them somewhat usable.
On another note, could you maybe explain how you made 2 exposures in ACR using the Alaska picture and combine them in Photoshop?
Thanks for continuing to tutor us in the best software on earth. Period.
Those who deride the use of Photoshop are usually grossly misinformed. People see badly retouched covers alongside newspaper articles berating such publications for creating false perceptions of the human form (the BBC has recently aired a one-hour programme regarding the misuse of Photoshop in the retouching magazine cover images).
It is worth noting that photographs have been retouched since the ‘invention’ of photography in the 19th Century. Victorian era portrait studios employed teams of artisans working to retouch the photographs made by the resident photographers and they were well paid for it.
Oscar Rejlander, one of the first fine art photographers, composited over thirty images together in order to create his “The Two Ways of Life†as far back as the 1850’s.
Post capture manipulation has always been used to realize that which could not be achieved in camera. Both the negative and the digital imaging sensor both have their shortcomings. In fact, the digital sensors linear response to light in a scene creates an inherent requirement for at least some amount of post capture work in order to create a more natural looking image (in the past the photographer was limited to the tonal response of a film stock as dictated by the manufacturer).
It goes without saying that every photographer worth his or her weight in salt should do the utmost to get it right in camera. However getting it right in camera is not necessarily getting it right in the print. As stated by a previous commenter, Ansel Adams spent days manipulating an image in the darkroom.However the commenter was quite wrong to state that Adams never got it right in camera. Ansel Adams took the correct exposure required to allow him to manipulate the print to that of his preconceived notion of how that print should look. Ansel Adams was a master photographer and an equally masterful printer.
It is all too easy to point to the work of Dave Hill or Joey Lawrence as indeed it does stand out as exemplary of what is capable of combining a good knowledge of lighting, exposure and of course Photoshop. However the real accolades should go to those photographers and retouchers whose work looks perfectly natural. Look to the works of Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky and Gregory Crewdson (most if not all of their work has been worked on to some degree). For example a Crewdson print is usually made up of around five or six exposures combined in Photoshop. Other details are further manipulated in order to get the image just right.
Compare also the work of Annie Liebowitz. Notice how her work has changed drastically since her adoption of digital imaging and Photoshop. Her portrait of Queen Elizabeth II comes to mind, which owes as much to her retouchers as it does to her own vision. I believe that retoucher in particular was Patrick Dangin who is an absolute master of Photoshop.
Now I don’t want this to come across as scathing as it is going to, but the crux of the matter is that all too many people rely on Photoshop to cover the fact that they are not as good with a camera than they would like(and I don’t mean that they are bad photographers!). Add to this the fact that they are equally as bad in their use of Photoshop and the problem is exacerbated.
To this extent, I do not think that Dave Cross or Stephen Johnson’s opinions differ too much in their respective posts, except in tone. Maybe it is the younger photographers who are more likely to neglect the craft of good image taking. Those who have been photographing for many years know all to well to take their time to get it right. Not everyone had access to a darkroom or worse still, a colour darkroom! However Photoshop is all too readily available today.
Perhaps we should all send our RAW files out to professional retouching studios to be worked on so we can concentrate on image taking. Perhaps like Gregory Crewdson, we should have a camera operator, a director of photography, a production assistant…!
Thanks for all the great comments! It’s definitely an exciting time in the world of photographic arts!
A few people have asked me how I combined two exposures (my Alaska example) so I’ve created a relatively basic overview over at my blog:
http://davecross.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-i-did-it.html
Thanks again for reading my opinions, and for your kind comments.
Wow! Great post Dave!
My professor used to say “Photoshop is it’s own universe”. Photography and Photoshop are like peanut butter and jelly…that’s the way I see it!
You guys are truly the best!
I don’t really know what “right” in the camera means. If you shot film, setup the camera pointed at a scene and shot with Velvia, then Kodachrome, then Ekatachrome, they all would produce different color appearance. Which is right? Well the one you prefer. If you’re shooting Raw, you’re essentially capturing Grayscale data. If you open that Raw in three different converters, even using just default rendering settings, they all look different, none matches the scene, so which is “right”? Then you need to translate that to a print. What paper? What’s the dynamic range (matt paper versus glossy, big difference)?
What you saw of the scene, what the camera captured are quite different. Rendering is subjective. We never want to (nor often do) captured accurate color, many scenes simply can’t fit within the range and gamut of what we actually saw. So what’s right? Again, its what you think is right. And that makes the process of photography, either analog or digitally a fun and creative process.
@ Dennis Zito
The difference that you see between the image you are seeing on the LCD screen and when you download in Lightroom is that the Camera is showing you the image after it has applied the processor settings of your Camera, where as Lightroom does not use the cameras processing instruction set.
If like the settings that the camera is showing you automatically and you play around with Lightroom’s Develop Module settings, you can come up with settings that replicate what the camera is doing. Then what you can do is save these settings as a preset and when you import your photos into Lightroom you have the option to apply this setting to all of the images in batch. That is basically what your camera is doing anyway, only the settings are set in camera instead of in the software.
For more on presets, check out Matt Kloskowski’s Adobe Lightroom Killer Tips blog. Hope this helps.
Hey Dave, great post and your timing on the heals of Stephen’s post last week is impecible.
I have to say that you both make great points and as some of the other people have commented here already even the greats touch-up their pics and this has been done for as long as photography has been in existance.
My question to all photographers is if you do make adjustments in your fav editting software why not be honest about it and admit to the fact that you enhanced it? People would accept the honesty better and be more likely to strive to achieve better
Dave: I know that LR stands for “Lightroom” software, but can you tell me what “ACR” stands for that you used in this blog?
Thanks,
Larry