On another technology front, I’ve decided to start shooting photographs in “raw” rather than just high-resolution .jpg. This means that I won’t be bracketing any longer, which should make life easier and won’t take so much card space on the camera (a “raw” image is about 10mg, whereas taking 3 .jpg pictures is usually roughly the same for each picture, and is slower both in terms of taking the pictures and in storing them). But it also means that I’ll have to do some post-processing. So, rather than sorting through 3 copies of the same picture, each shot at a different exposure, I’ll have to take a look at 1 picture and tweak it using Canon’s Digital Photo Professional. The tweak there will be for exposure and sharpness, and to then convert to either .tif or .jpg. At that point I have the option of using some other piece of software (probably GIMP and/or IrfanView).
My first difficulty in this transition? I’d like a streamlined workflow for doing all of this.
Right now, my workflow is this:
- take the pictures (x3 exposures),
- plug the camera into the computer which automatically transfers pictures to the computer,
- sift through the pictures (using the Windows Image Viewer) to determine which to keep, rotating the ones which need rotating as I go,
- rename the pictures,
- upload all of them to Flickr,
- move the pictures into folders with names corresponding to the sets on Flickr.
What would change in this flow would be step 3: it would become several steps, involving the use of Canon Photo Professional and GIMP. It would also involve me editing the pictures far more heavily than I have been doing, to date.
I’m squirming about this transition for a few reasons other than workflow (after all, I design software, I can figure out a process). First, I think that I’d like to not really get into “editing” my pictures … at least, not in terms of “altering” them. That’s a difficult thing, because it’s not a rigid boundary. I mean, it’s one thing to overexpose a photo, or to change the sharpness or color saturation – these are features which correspond to the use of different exposure settings, lenses or different film types. Even cropping has an analogue in the film world. The problem is that it’s not whether there’s an analogue that’s at issue – after all, photos were retouched long before color film came into the world!
I think that what I’m getting at is that I want to do photography, not to invent something that wasn’t there. Using software to manipulate what I’ve seen feels as if I’m crossing that divide, somehow.
The other thing with getting into the software is that I’ve been pretty rigid in terms of wanting to be the best photographer possible without the help of software. If I’m tinkering with software, I’m taking time away from the actual practice of photography. At least, that’s what it feels like.
I don’t know – these are all of the technology issues I’m thinking about today. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
Thoughts?
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Amen! I understand exactly what you are feeling and thinking. I have struggled with the same issue. In all, I would rather spend more time on the photography then “manipulating” it with software. I want real-world. Besides, sometimes you might be surprised at how something came out within the bracket… 😉
True!
This evening I’ve played with Gimp, Canon’s software, and PhotoMatix (to do some HDR, which isn’t editing the picture so much as tweaking the light).
Survey says? The cropping is wonderful, as are the exposure tweaks made available in Canon’s stuff. Gimp is truly easy to use, but I won’t be using it for anything that goes up to be called a photograph, because that’s just strait editing the picture. PhotoMatix … is a pain, and I really doubt I’ll be using it much in the future. It’s been fun to play with, but I can get similar results just in changing exposure / contrast levels, and that’s not so much of a tortuous effort.
As someone who has been using Photoshop since about 1990 or so, I’ve never been a photo purist, but then I never really learned how to take photographs with a good non=digital camera, either, so I’m a camera/Photoshop slut of sorts. I’m usually pretty careful not to overdo any of the use of the tools, so the photos are ‘close’ to natural and mostly I’m tweaking the brightness and contrast and, sometimes, the color balance. Hope that GIMP works well for you. Photoshop is a whole ‘nother thing and takes lots of time to learn the ins and outs of, but it’s a pretty nice tool box to have if you take lots of photos.
That photo is amazing. I have not gotten to that Raw point yet as I still need a new camera with that capability (maybe for Christmas). I’ve always used Photoshop for everything and I’m fairly handy with it. But I just recently got hold of Lightbox. I watched a photographer friend use it and it’s truly amazing, though It seems as if there’s a rather steep learning curve. But she flashed through those photo’s like nobody’s business, and I see the power in the batching and other neat time saving widgets. As soon as I get a few extra days – I’m planning to have a Lightbox party right here in my studio. Me, the software, and some photos…
Elle: The thing is that I’ve also used editing tools, but have been reluctant to pick up the habit again. I guess that I’ve been thinking, “I’ve got over $1,000 worth of photo equipment – if I can’t take a good photo, I need to learn, and if I have to tweak it, it’s not a good photo.” Now, that said, I’m reevaluating. I won’t be going Photoshop, though – I’ve tried it and it’s just too painful.
Claudia: If Lightbox seems like it’s got a steep learning curve, and you are comfortable with Photoshop, then it’s something I won’t touch with a 100-foot pole!
On a general note – I’ve found that I’m happier, now that I’m shooting raw, particularly because you save a “recipe” to the raw, and don’t actually alter the raw information. So, I’m not losing anything at all, but generating .jpg’s as an output. So, I can keep the original and throw away the .jpg’s as soon as I’ve uploaded them to Flickr. Now, to find a storage solution for my raw, as I’m averaging about 4 gigabytes of “worth saving” per shoot!
I guess thing to keep in mind is that the camera is attempting to capture what the human eye sees. A camera, no matter how many megapixals it has is never going to be able to reproduce exactly what the eye sees. So it will always been an interpretation of it. I use Photoshop Elements and usually just do a little tweaking if it doesn’t look right and of course crop. Think of photography like any other art form. With Painting you had your realists or impressionist movements. Photography is just an exstension of that. We all get that happy glow and feeling of accomplishment when you can post that photo straight out of the camera. But don’t give yourself a guilt trip if it needs a little tweaking. Again the camera is not the human eye.
But on the flip side there are those that sway more to the impressionistic side of things and photography is just one tool towards reaching the final artistic goal.
One is neither right or wrong, just different ways of creating something. I know where you are coming from and used to think the same way. Its only through having these conversations that I came to my own choice about what I wanted to accomplish and by what means I choose to get there.
Sorry for the long rant, this is easier in a conversation than in a ‘comment’. Back to our regular scheduled programming…
Chris: I’ve been considering this, and trying to figure out where my own discomfort enters the picture. I’ve been playing a bit with HDR (Google “Realistic HDR” and you’ll find this Flickr group), but I think that I may just stick with Canon’s software, as it seems to do as good a job as some of the HDR software … or, rather, it seems to give me a better representation of what I saw, without all of the pain of remixing the images.
I acknowledge that the pictures I take won’t actually represent the way things actually were, if only because the human eye has a far greater dynamic range than any photography equipment out there (at least, any equipment even remotely close to my price range). Eventually I think that HDR cameras will make their way into the market, but for now I guess I’m going to be making small tweaks rather than large ones.
As to the artwork question … I guess that’s another thing I’m having to come to terms with. I’d regarded photography as more of a science, seeing as it deals with mechanical things. Seeing it as an art … opens things up a bit, and brings up more questions.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”…so please your own eye in whatever manner appeals to you most, right?
You wouldn’t believe how many times I get a picture that’s perfect… as in no cropping, no lightening, darkening, etc, etc… it’s rare 🙂 But it sure does feel good every once in awhile to say “This picture is straight out of my camera, no retouching… at all” 😉
I do say it’s strictly up to the photographer what he/she wants to do with their own pictures though, it’s a personal decision. Sorry I wasn’t much help 🙂