Glow
Monday, May 16. 2005
Cambridge, MA (May 1, 2005)
In the last issue of the Photoblogs Magazine, Pablo wrote a very nice and useful article about portraits and Photoshop, talking about some nice tricks that can be done in the “electronic darkroom” while working on portraits. My philosophy, when it comes to Photoshop, is that the final goal of the photographic process is being able to render on the screen (or on print) what I imagined the photo to be while I was pressing the shutter button. If this means to alter the binary numbers representing colors and brightness in the electronic file encoding the image, well that is fine for me, since these binary numbers are anyway only an approximation of the particular reality that my camera and its CCD was registering at that moment. In this sense Photoshop is just a mere tool I use to reconcile the reality of the camera with my own subjective reality. In the case of portraits, however, there is the added factor that one is not only manipulating the image, but also the physical features of a real person. This can make some people Photoshop-shy when it comes to “retouching” a portrait.
I do not adhere to this school. According to one personal objectives, even heavy Photoshop manipulations are still ok, in some case necessary to achieve specific artistic goals. Think for example of the artful creations of Daniel Herrera, were his model is deconstructed in a fractal of lines and noise. The final image does not aim to be a literal portrait of Anna, but become an emotional portrait of an emotional states.
My portraits are much more literal than the ones of Daniel, but are still the product of lengthy Photoshop manipulations. The radiant glow in this image, for example, was added by a combination of blurs and sharpening, with the luminosity determined with the curve tool. What do you do on your portraits? What is your measure of what to do, and where to stop?
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I like this portrait, it’s so natural-looking and the effects you applied made it soft and really nice to look at. Unfortunately for me, I’m not good at portraits. I’m the kind of photographer who tends to leave the human factor outside his/her work... 
This discussion goes back to the beginning of photography, and, basically, is fruitless.
The whole process is nothing but choice: take a picture, don’t take a picture; take the picture of this and not that, include this and not that, take it now not later, take the picture of the head not the hand, take it in black and white not color, take it straight on not profile,take it from the neck up, take it smiling but not smiling, focus on the eyes rather than the mouth use a fine grain film, use a coarse grain.......etc.
Reality is never without its observer. And then when you deal with more than one observer you start the discussion as to the nature of what is being observed. And that goes and on and on.....
For me what counts in the end is the emotional impact of the image. What I did to get that image is secondary. Very interesting to talk about, but its the image that’s everything.
Your pictures are beautiful, beautiful! Very intelligent.
The whole process is nothing but choice: take a picture, don’t take a picture; take the picture of this and not that, include this and not that, take it now not later, take the picture of the head not the hand, take it in black and white not color, take it straight on not profile,take it from the neck up, take it smiling but not smiling, focus on the eyes rather than the mouth use a fine grain film, use a coarse grain.......etc.
Reality is never without its observer. And then when you deal with more than one observer you start the discussion as to the nature of what is being observed. And that goes and on and on.....
For me what counts in the end is the emotional impact of the image. What I did to get that image is secondary. Very interesting to talk about, but its the image that’s everything.
Your pictures are beautiful, beautiful! Very intelligent.
~I am a firm believer of not editing an image to distort the reality of what was captured...and since I do not shoot studio or formal portraits I adhere to this mantra all the time, for if I was shooting professional, planned/orchestrated portraits in a studio or another setting I would expect to tweak, alter, enhance and add to a shot to make sure the client was 100% satisfied with the result...but, I shoot portraits on the street, in natural light, and I have no desire to alter or misrepresent the subjects i portray, I want them to feel comfy with how I portray them, and not worry that i will ‘change’ something to suit my vision, for street portraits should be raw, unaltered, real, not edited for artistic purpose nor for presentation...sure, I convert from color to b&w/greyscale, adjust the tones w/ the curves in PShop, sometimes although rarely, crop...but what i see is what the viewer gets. I leave artistic rendering to the artists, rather I think of myself as a social documentarian, a PJ of sorts, and would not think of presenting a portrait of someone that was not what it was originally...~
mm, Massimo, no offense to the photographer, but this is one of the ugliest photos of me ever 
Can you post a pretty one next time? Actually I turned most of this series of yours into black and whites, played a tiny bit with the contrast and brought up the red...this one in particular was still unattractive, but a couple of the other ones turned out well...I think in this case cropping the top of my forehead off works against the image, making me look even more simian (ape-like) and less cute. It’s hard to have vain subjects I know. Ciao...
Can you post a pretty one next time? Actually I turned most of this series of yours into black and whites, played a tiny bit with the contrast and brought up the red...this one in particular was still unattractive, but a couple of the other ones turned out well...I think in this case cropping the top of my forehead off works against the image, making me look even more simian (ape-like) and less cute. It’s hard to have vain subjects I know. Ciao...
interesting entry. lovely subject. i’ve always wondered about that... of up to how much one can edit photos in photoshop. i think it all depends on what you want to represent; just editing what you’ve seen as you took the picture. but when it comes to portraits, i like to add that blurry effect, too. i think that’s not a bit too much
hermoso retrato! siempre creo que lo mas importante es captar la personalidad y no la persona, y en este caso la has captado magistralmente, y en mi opinion el glow le da mas vida...
lo de si usar photoshop o no creo que es una discucion sin sentido, no es mejor usarlo ni dejarlo de usar..., (si Leonardo lo hubiese tenido lo hubiese usado? sin duda que si!)
lo de si usar photoshop o no creo que es una discucion sin sentido, no es mejor usarlo ni dejarlo de usar..., (si Leonardo lo hubiese tenido lo hubiese usado? sin duda que si!)
cuando digo una discucion sin sentido, no me refiero a que este mal discutirlo, lo que quiero decir es que debe haber tantas opiniones a favor como en contra y al final se vuelve una decision personal, como muy bien tu lo mencionas...
y muchas gracias por tus palabras tan amables sobre mi articulo en la revista!
(disculpa que te escriba en espanol, pero esto en ingles me costaria mucho)
y muchas gracias por tus palabras tan amables sobre mi articulo en la revista!
(disculpa que te escriba en espanol, pero esto en ingles me costaria mucho)
Massimo, I generally find myself in the same camp as btzera; however, I don’t think altering reality is “wrong”. For me, it is a question of honesty. I don’t want to be “tricked” by an altered photo, but I don’t think that is what Daniel Herrera (or you) is doing. If you alter the photo to add a certain mood or feel to it, I’m all for that. If you alter her skin tone so that it looks like she has a tan, or turn her into a blond, or something like that, I think that is a different story. There is also a line in there somewhere where you cross over from photography to painting. I like both mediums, I just like to know which one I’m looking at.
I think we should stop worrying about Photoshop and its friends.
We need to look at it for what it is: just another venue of creativity.
Whether you only correct your photos or create a new reality altogether or somewhere in between, what difference does it REALLY make? None at all.
We need to look at it for what it is: just another venue of creativity.
Whether you only correct your photos or create a new reality altogether or somewhere in between, what difference does it REALLY make? None at all.
I’ll photoshop the heck out of some and none on others. The extent I do or don’t is when I look at the picture and can say...I like that. Sometimes I never can get to that point even after working with it for some time. On those I just close the picture and go on to another one. So for me it’s about making the shots interesting and likable for me. If there happens to be others who like it then that’s icing on the cake! Don’t mistake my words for arrogance either, because I’m still new and learning. I think too many people sit down to try and make a picture something that alot of people will like and comment on instead of what pleases them. That’s my two cents.
Don’t mistake my words for arrogance either, because I’m still new and learning. I think too many people sit down to try and make a picture something that alot of people will like and comment on instead of what pleases them. That’s my two cents.
I’m coming to understand and appreciate (and even embrace) this school of thought. For me, it is what the image is asking for when I download it. Does it stay as true to what came out (it will tell me) or does it need retouching? The image speaks to me and I can see a specific image in my imagination long before it’s ready to be uploaded.
i want you to look at the picture that i put today and tell me walt you think!! http://www.danielherrera.com/photoblog/?showimage=322
I’d like to add my two pennies worth here if I may
I not only process in PS and sometimes I really alter the colouring and desaturate an image, but I also leave the image as it is taking it right from the camera. It depends what appeals to me at the time. Sometimes I’ve posted two of the same photograph, processed differntly to get feedback, just to see what others think as a sharing exercise.
To me, what matters is the visual experience and photography is exactly what you make it with whatever tools you wish to use and always has been. The debate will always be there on purity v manipulation -- in whatever art form.
But is there really such a thing as a “pure” shot?
Still, this portrait is lovely. I do love people shots.
I not only process in PS and sometimes I really alter the colouring and desaturate an image, but I also leave the image as it is taking it right from the camera. It depends what appeals to me at the time. Sometimes I’ve posted two of the same photograph, processed differntly to get feedback, just to see what others think as a sharing exercise.
To me, what matters is the visual experience and photography is exactly what you make it with whatever tools you wish to use and always has been. The debate will always be there on purity v manipulation -- in whatever art form.
But is there really such a thing as a “pure” shot?
Still, this portrait is lovely. I do love people shots.
My response is not about digital manipulation to portraits but to photographs in general.
I used to be very much against digital manipulation of any form. Very much a “in-camera-adjustments-only” type of person.
I gradually came to realise that the position I held was largely a result of ignorance. I didn’t know enough about the whole photographic process, and the amount of manipulation that occurs to images whether in digital or analog form.
Nowadays I make adjustments to my photos in order to bring them ‘back’ to the position I originally had in my mind. I use a dedicated film scanner which has a personality of its own, so I always end up altering my images in the end to try and bring them back to what I thought they were. Of course it’s easy to toe that line and go ‘what if I was to just up the contrast a bit, or make the colour balance a little colder, etc.’
I think at the end of the day it’s mainly an issue of integrity. Photoshop and its likes has made alteration of photos so much easier and accessible to people at large that the temptation to drastically alter something and then claim you shot it with minimal levels of post-processing has increased, if that somehow marks you out as a ‘talented shooter’.
Where possible I try to offer subjects I shoot several possible outcomes of a post-processed portrait. We have a discussion and we try to reach some common ground.
I used to be very much against digital manipulation of any form. Very much a “in-camera-adjustments-only” type of person.
I gradually came to realise that the position I held was largely a result of ignorance. I didn’t know enough about the whole photographic process, and the amount of manipulation that occurs to images whether in digital or analog form.
Nowadays I make adjustments to my photos in order to bring them ‘back’ to the position I originally had in my mind. I use a dedicated film scanner which has a personality of its own, so I always end up altering my images in the end to try and bring them back to what I thought they were. Of course it’s easy to toe that line and go ‘what if I was to just up the contrast a bit, or make the colour balance a little colder, etc.’
I think at the end of the day it’s mainly an issue of integrity. Photoshop and its likes has made alteration of photos so much easier and accessible to people at large that the temptation to drastically alter something and then claim you shot it with minimal levels of post-processing has increased, if that somehow marks you out as a ‘talented shooter’.
Where possible I try to offer subjects I shoot several possible outcomes of a post-processed portrait. We have a discussion and we try to reach some common ground.
This has already become an old discussion among photographers who use digital cameras. Before that it was the dark room and people used to discuss whether it was appropriate to alter images in the darkroom process. That’s why some like to call photoshop the darkroom of the digital age. As this has been discussed thoroughly in many places, I’ll just say that taking a photograph is already altering the so-called reality. It’s impossible here to start a discussion on what reality is, whether it is just a perception, a cultural, ideological and social thing is beyond the scope of an innocent photoblog comment. This said, I always use photoshop for my portraits and self portraits and I use both methods that Massimo mentions: 1. play with contrast, light, colours and curves to alter the photo a bit 2. heavily play with layers, masks, and other artifacts to create a altogether different image that has been captured initially by the camera. Both are fun and can be creative.
I haven’t posted my portraits and self portraits on my photoblog yet (it’s still a baby), but you may check my flickr.com sets:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kren/sets/
I haven’t posted my portraits and self portraits on my photoblog yet (it’s still a baby), but you may check my flickr.com sets:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kren/sets/
Add Comment
Calendar
|
January '09 |
|
||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
