Before & After
February 28th, 2006People ask me all the time if I edit my photos. This is a loaded question. Of course I edit them. It’s very rare that a photo just happens and everything is perfect. Sometimes everything is great, but the light is flat or the tone is wrong. Most of the edits I do involve color correction (or color interpretation) and sharpening. The images are resized for sharing on the web, and sharpening makes a big difference when you shrink an image.
On the day I took this photo
the sky was flat and gray. There was a ton of construction and the best shot was at the tram stops. The problem with the tram stops is that they have tons of overhead wires that are a complete distraction from the subject. As an exercise, I decided to remove the wires and then color correct, sharpen and touch up the sky:
I don’t always do such drastic work on an image, but it felt good to abuse the clone and healing tools.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Interesting. I’ve been toying with switching to digital for a little while - and this is a very good example of why. So many times I snap a great shot, only to have a distraction (like the tram wires) get in the way.
Of course, I could still fix with scanning, etc., but…blah.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Do the Netherlands only have eight-hour days?
I particularly like the way the sky looks in the retouched photo. The two of you make me want to tote my camera with me everywhere I go…
February 28th, 2006 at 9:55 am
It’s only abuse if you can’t stop.
“I can quit the rubber stamp tool anytime. I’m not addicted. It’s something I enjoy and helps me relax.”
Perhaps an intervention or a 12 step program is in your future. :-]
February 28th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Can you give us some pointers on how you got the sky to look like that? I take a lot of outside shots for rowing and usually its rainy and gray and I would love to do that to brighten up the pictures a bit.
Thanks
February 28th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Awe man, I need to learn me some Photoshop.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Excellent work! You can’t even tell it’s been retouched and it makes it a much better photo.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:57 am
The crimson on the clock face looks richer in the second photo, as a result of your editing the sky, I’m sure. Nice.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Fabulous work — very rarely are photos just “naturally” beautiful. That’s why photography is an art. It’s not just about looking through the lens, it’s about what you do at every step, and finishing touches are a step.
Telephone wires and power lines are the natural enemy of the photographer. Thank God for Photoshop and tools like the rubber stamp–they’re my candle and spoon for nearly every shot.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Wow, Jon - you got some mad skillz! I can’t even see the man behind the curtain.
And jon deal - doesn’t NAPP offer member discounts on addiction counseling? At least I hope so, cuz I know some folks who could use a little help with the drop shadow thing…
February 28th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Call me a purist, but a retouched digital image isn’t a photograph. While I appreciate the skill involved, knowing that an image has been manipulated takes away the ‘wow’ factor. To me, photography is about capturing a moment in time and space that was actually experienced. Guess I’m a bit of a Luddite.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:38 am
I miss working in Photoshop, especially when I see something like this where you can really see just how cool that program can be. Your pictures are incredible, retouched/corrected or no, and I consider PS to be the modern equivalent to processing in the darkroom…except much, much cheaper! Add that to the digital vs film equation! I wondered about the light effect, but I had no idea you were working with so many wires. I am in awe.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I appreciate these types of posts because they make photoediting seem less cumbersome to beginners (like me).
A post sharing tips on where to get started would be appreciated by a lot of us, I’m sure. There are probably other websites for this but you have a very accessable way of explaining camera workings.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:46 am
So Jon, do you edit your photos?
February 28th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Wow, that’s amazing! I mean I’ve touched up some pics before…..but you can’t see anything, not even in the windows!
February 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Elise, what is a photograph? Is it just what the camera records, digital or film? What about paper and chemicals and light balance on the enlarger? What about Photoshop?
I appreciate your view. I try to bring an artistic flavor to my shots. I’ve seen some photographs referred to as sketches or paintings or imagery, but at the end of the day, for me, it’s about capturing light, regardless of the medium.
I chose this image to share because I did a ton of work on it.
patatomic, reread the first paragraph while you are KISSING MY ASS.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I agree that there has to be some level of tweaking for almost every single photo. The single most under rated adjustment for publishing digital photos on the web is sharpening. You can see how it really makes the bricks, the roof tiles and the gold just pop out of the images.
good work!
February 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
I really like the work you did on the photo, especially in deleting the wires.
My only criticism is that the sky looks too fake. Its a little too purple and the radial gradient just doesn’t look right to my eyes.
But really, it is your photo and you can do whatever you like with it. Good job.
Meretrice
February 28th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
You know, at one time I was completely uptight about making any changes to photographs via Photoshop. I was even anti-digital, as I posted about in my blog today.
Then, I took a developing class and realized, that, well, duh, you can manipulate so much when processing by hand, too. Who is to say that one way is ok while the other compromises the artistic integrity? Both ways are manipulation, and in my opinion, sometimes necessary. And now we have the technology to manipulate in a more accessible manner. At least that’s how I see it, anyway.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I take your point about the chemical processes of developing and printing influencing the outcome of a traditional print, that’s not what I meant. For me a photograph is an experience, either one that I’ve had, or one that I’m seeing through a photographer’s eyes. There’s nothing better than looking at an image and feeling like you were there, hearing what it sounded like, what it smelled like. The photographer’s skill in finding the light, composing the shot, seeing something that others miss - wow.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Oy. This is such a sensitive subject to me.
Originally, I am a die-hard photography fanatic. The original meaning of photography is painting with light… which for me, felt like darkroom manipulation was okay (and, oh, how I miss you stop bath). But digital has totally changed the way the world views photography.
For me, digital has meant saving money by snapping unlimited photos of my kids. It has also helped photojournalistic endeavors to be much more easy and getting to press much more simple. But they are not true photographs, but images.
Yes, your image in the second picture is nicer, and I’m sure it is more true to form from the architect’s perspective. But, call me a snob, it is an image, not a photograph.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
The argument that digital photographs aren’t true photographs is purely semantic. I tend to agree with Jon; photographs are about capturing light. Are Polaroid transfers as “images,” or “photographs?” What about tin types?
This is a sensitive subject for me as well. Alteration of digital photographs is post-processing. Digital photographs are photographs captured in digital form instead of film. At its introduction, photography changed the way the world viewed image-making. Digital is just another alteration.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
*Running out the door to buy a book on Photoshop, so I can learn to do more than just crop*
February 28th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Great, if it can take wires off a building then Photoshop can put a rack on me for my wedding photos. Maybe I’ll invest some time in learning this.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Jeez…just kidding around there Captn’. Maybe it’s time to get a crowbar and unwedge those 100% Cottons that are so firmly embedded in blurbo-crackaroonie-ville…
Seriously though, digital photography is the greatest invention. I love the fact that I can instantly publish, tweek or whatever my limitations allow me to do. Brilliant on so many levels.
Jon, your work is inspiring. Thanks for sharing. How about a tutorial or two?
February 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Jon - thank you for posting your photographs and being honest about any changes you have made.
For those that are concerned with whether or not this is art there are a few key points I think we all need to keep in mind.
1 - Jon is taking photographs as a form of artistic expression. This being the case the fact that he manipulates them in any way (whether that be by making color shots black and white or editing parts of them) does not change the intent or the integrity of the piece. What he does after the initial shot has been taken is simply another step in his artistic process.
2 - There’s nothing wrong with him doing this. In fact it’s done everyday by magazines, yearbook photographers and other professional photographers. We see images that have been digitally manipulated everyday. Jon is not passing his work off as photo-journalism so he can take the changes as far as he wants to.
3 - Photo manipulation happens constantly. Every photo you see in a newspaper has been digitally altered so that it will print in enough contrast to look good on newsprint.
(I have a background in art/design and newpapers - this is something we deal with constantly.)
Thanks for posting your work Jon!