Author Topic: hello... and a question (Read 6574 times)

jessthespringer · « **on:** November 16, 2009, 12:16:36 AM »

Hi there, just found this forum last night, looks a cool place. See quite a few names I know from flickr.

Just wanted to ask a question about Photoshop, and general views about it's use on scanned negs/transparencies,
I'm aware some are in favor and some are against.

There seems to be a broad scale of users here and I'd be curious to know how others feel. It's an honest question, not meant any other way.

Sinead.

Oh, ps. Sinead, from Ireland.

gregor · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:32:39 AM »

i will rarely, but sometimes, use photoshop for purpose other than those that mimic darkroom techniques (i.e. burn, dodge, tweak curves and levels). When I do (i.e. a digital lith for giclee prints), I don't lose any sleep over it.

is that what your asking about?

jessthespringer · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:41:54 AM »

Yes, kind of, sorry, perhaps the question was not very clear.

I mean manipulation techniques, other than burn, dodge, levels etc...
For example, the use of layers, or as you say, digital lith, or converting to black and white, or adding colour to black and white, or changing the colour, or blending different pictures together... That kind of thing. I'm interested to know what views people have on that?

rdbkorn · « **Reply #3 on:** November 16, 2009, 01:42:14 AM »

Sinead,

Welcome to filmwasters!

My personal philosophy is to use whatever tools are at my disposal to bring an image to the point where it fulfills my original intent. Sometimes I use darkroom manipulations. Other times I use Lightroom and Photoshop mostly for colour (I don't do colour printing in my darkroom) or for creating digital negatives for printing cyanotypes or kallitypes.

Paul

gregor · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2009, 01:46:33 AM »

we are steadfastly against and for everything -:^^

Skorj · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2009, 04:45:21 AM »

Quote from: gregor on November 16, 2009, 01:46:33 AM

we are steadfastly against and for everything -:^^

Glibness aside, this is a pretty damn good answer - if it makes something good to look at, isn't obviously processed, then go for it. I know I have no strong feelings about this myself, but some others may. As a hybrider myself, I do what I want, and ensure I enjoy the process along the way.

Welcome too of course! Skj.

Heather · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2009, 08:02:08 AM »

Quote from: gregor on November 16, 2009, 01:46:33 AM

we are steadfastly against and for everything -:^^

Exactly

I only view photoshop (or rather, my decrepit old copy of Paint Shop Pro from 2000 or so) like an artist who has to take photos/slides of their art work to share with the world. I do very little manipulation if at all. I don't really even like the term "digital lith" because lith printing is such an odd way of printing and quite a lot of it is random by nature.

I don't mind if you're saying digitally manipulated photograph or artwork. It's when it just sounds like you're faking it in digital that it bothers me greatly (and digital cyanotypes look nothing like real ones and I can spot them in flickr pools of cyanotypes by a mile off). Suck it up and just admit you fiddled with it in photoshop.

Having had my cyanotypes scanned by someone else and put in a blurb book, digital reproduction isn't always good, though I may have to blame the person who scanned it, or just the fact that in the book, they're bigger than real life and that might have made them lose their detail and go kind of fuzzy

/rant

LT · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2009, 09:15:06 AM »

Hi Sinead and a big emulsion coated welcome to Filmwasters.

As our most esteemed forum members have each expressed on an individual basis, and the honourable Skorj has on a representative FW basis .... for personal tastes, I enjoy good pictures no matter where they come from or how they got there. I use photoshop sometimes ... mainly to work out a printing plan for when I take the neg into the darkroom. To do this I'm using various tools from the ps armoury but I will always stay true to the negative - making composites is something I personally dont like, whether by traditional or digital methods, but that's just personal.

From a Filmwasters forum point of view, we have only a few rules, the most important of which is that any picture/ topic of discussion is welcome here provided it originates from/ utilises a silver/ emulsion based process (eg film mostly, although there are some wet-plate and glass-plate users here).

I take it from your UN and avatar that you are a dog owner? well, you're doubly lucky cos there's a whole raft of dog owners here who occasionally post snaps of their hounds ... just do a forum search for dogs and you'll be bound to find plenty.

looking forward to seeing your work.

Leon

calbisu · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:10:36 AM »

Hello everybody!

Myself used to shoot with Digital, lots of digital processing with photoshop. One day I realized that I mainly proceesed my photos with photoshop to give them a ?film? look; so one day I bought one analogique camara, and then one more, and one more... Now I only shoot analogique but I use photoshop, mainly curves and levels, minor color adjustements... may be in the future some more. As has been said before photoshop is just a tool to achieve what you had on mind when shooting (or not). And I think that when the original is emulsion it does not matter how deep the alteration or processing is, you will still feel is film. That?s it : )

Calbisu.

vicky slater · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:14:45 AM »

Hi Sinead!

I use PS for colour adjustment mostly and I do convert to b/w sometimes and of course curves to correct my skewy scanner.
Though I really enjoy some composites and textured pictures etc, I don't do it*; I've tried layers a couple of times and it just felt wrong, like I was making it wear a polyester/nylon mix rather than natural fibres, if that makes sense :)
And whatever you do is fine with me.

*i am old and boring

jessthespringer · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2009, 11:57:39 AM »

Thanks very much everyone for the replies, and the welcomes too.

All very interesting viewpoints.

Quote from: rdbkorn on November 16, 2009, 01:42:14 AM

My personal philosophy is to use whatever tools are at my disposal to bring an image to the point where it fulfills my original intent.

Quote from: leon taylor on November 16, 2009, 09:15:06 AM

I enjoy good pictures no matter where they come from or how they got there.

Yes, that's pretty much how I feel about it too.

Quote from: gregor on November 16, 2009, 01:46:33 AM

we are steadfastly against and for everything -:^^

Tee hee... Brilliant!!

Quote from: Heather on November 16, 2009, 08:02:08 AM

Having had my cyanotypes scanned by someone else and put in a blurb book, digital reproduction isn't always good, though I may have to blame the person who scanned it, or just the fact that in the book, they're bigger than real life and that might have made them lose their detail and go kind of fuzzy /rant

That's a huge issue, there is or seems to be an absolute world of difference in scanning quality. How the scan is handled is hugely important, I wouldn't have thought it would have mattered they're bigger, a print would have high resolution? So, should be able to handle enlargement.

I'm a bit disillusioned with lab scans at the moment, decent sized scans are just too expensive, the smaller scans lack quality, are difficult to work with, and, are uselessly small, max print size I can seem to get from a 6x6 scan is 41/2 x 41/2. Most of them(mine) seem to just end up on flickr... Totally defeating the purpose (sorry, I'm on a rant now

)

Quote from: leon taylor on November 16, 2009, 09:15:06 AM

I take it from your UN and avatar that you are a dog owner? well, you're doubly lucky cos there's a whole raft of dog owners here who occasionally post snaps of their hounds ... just do a forum search for dogs and you'll be bound to find plenty.

Indeed! Jess, a black & white Springer Spaniel...

Holga, XP2, lith on Oriental Seagull paper

And, the most recent, Lubitel 2, Portra NC, cropped and fiddled with in LR & PS (the conversion was done in LR & a textured layer, by flickr user Skeletal Mess' added in PS)

Thanks again, everyone. Looking forward to getting involved here.

Sinead

tinm@n · « **Reply #11 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:02:22 PM »

Hi Sinead, nice to see you on here ((( .... and of course the ever-present Jess ;-))))

I only use Photoshop when I have to and prefer to explore the darkroom techniques. I do like doing graphics work in PS and experimenting with photos but haven't done any in a while.

moominsean · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:10:10 PM »

I try to retain the original "intent" of the film. I scan a lot of polaroids and make an effort to appreciate the tones that polaroid film presents on its own. I'm a bit more variable when scanning film negatives. I don't go out of my way to make extreme color shifts (aka HDR), but I do mess with contrast and color balance, same as I would if I was printing. But I wouldn't make a fake lith in PS from a regular 35mm neg. I guess I try to keep some of the purity of the original. If I want to do an alernate process, I'd rather do it for real!

jessthespringer · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:19:46 PM »

Cheers Tim.
Nice to see you too, no doubt, Tess is around also

I'd much prefer the darkroom too, am currently, albeit, slowly making plans for one at home. I do have access to one in college, but, it's difficult to get a space there at the moment.

moominsean - I know your work from flickr too, love the Polaroid, on the road series...

My understanding of HDR is that it's a blend of different exposures from bracketed pictures, can't say I'd be a fan.
I'd rather do it for real too, but, it's a useful tool for experimentation I think.

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** November 16, 2009, 03:34:38 PM »

Bonjour Sinead!

I think we all have a love/hate relationship with Photoshop. I mostly use it to adjust levels and do global modification (and remove the occasional telephone pole in the middle of...). I don't do much dodging and burning on my pictures anyways...

jessthespringer · « **Reply #15 on:** November 18, 2009, 10:53:08 AM »

Thanks Francois, and everyone else. Nice to hear some different view points

Sinead

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #16 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:52:57 PM »

Hi Sinead, welcome to FW. Of the views here the one which most atches my own is Sean's (moominsean).

I don't use the trad darkroom at all (in fact I'm currently not even processing my own b/w films) so from the point that the neg arrives with me I'm digital all the way, but I limit digital manipulation to cropping, levels, curves, colour correction & dust/scratches removal. Over and above that, the rest of what I could do in Photoshop doesn't really interest me.

For whatever reason the whole PS textures thing really bothers me. I see it as a step too far and I wouldn't really want to see it here on FW and I guess that raises an important point....and please bear with me as I try to say something quite profound in as few words as possible because I'm supposed to be working

This website is an articifically bounded little corner of the online photo world which likes to direct a fairly narrow field of view towards the traditional side of photography. Filmwasters is frequented by a whole mix of people, with a variety of photographic styles, loves, hates, philosophies, ways of working etc. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people here use digital cameras regularly. Some earn their living from it. On the other hand, some regulars are fervent film fanatics and keep all apsects of their work as trad as possible. Certainly just being a member of the Filmwasters forum could be seen as a statement of sorts.

The important distinction however is that while they're here at Filmwasters, people stick to discussing & promoting the creative side of traditional photography - which is a way of saying that we set the site up to talk about images more than equipment.

So your question is an interesting one & probably most people could give you 2 answers depending on whether they're wearing their Filmwasters underwear & drinking a fixer smoothie at the time or not.

(...does that make any sense at all? I'll probably read it back later tonight at home and wonder what on earth I was rambling on about.)

Francois · « **Reply #17 on:** November 18, 2009, 04:01:46 PM »

Quote from: ed.wenn on November 18, 2009, 02:52:57 PM

most people could give you 2 answers depending on whether they're wearing their Filmwasters underwear & drinking a fixer smoothie at the time or not.

And as we all know, Filmwasters whities are the sexiest around the block

Oh!, I think we should just forget that one

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #18 on:** November 18, 2009, 04:51:38 PM »

for what its worth...I first found photoshop about the time I got a computer..2000 or 2001..took some classes..found it interesting..but of course you would have to get a Masters Degree to fully use and understand its potential..I use it to fix contrast, turn my digital colors to black and white sometimes and to remove dust scratches..since I have learned to develope my own black and white film I barely touch it!..It is a great tool..that being said I have to say there are "several" photographers out there that use photoshop to the point that most of the time I have to study the work to decide if it is a painting or a photograph..art for arts sake is wonderful but when you use so many layers and filters that the viewer is seeing the end result of so much "photoshoping" what is the point..I am sorry but at that point I am not sure that the end result IS a photograph...I know for a fact that many of these artists are selling their work and getting rave reviews but to me it is sort of like the fairytale "the emporers new clothes"..no one is brave enough to stand up and say.."the king is naked"...photoshop is wonderful, a terrific tool..but the bottom line is you should end up with a cleaner version of what you started with not 12 generations later of the original..hope this doesn't offend..just a personal point of view......

Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes. · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2009, 11:44:55 PM »

Quote from: Diane Peterson on November 18, 2009, 04:51:38 PM

"the emporers new clothes"..no one is brave enough to stand up and say.."the king is naked"...photoshop is wonderful, a terrific tool..but the bottom line is you should end up with a cleaner version of what you started with not 12 generations later of the original..hope this doesn't offend..just a personal point of view......

I AM OFFENDED

that you don't say this more often and louder.

I am a product of commercial photography and are a member of a professional body whose annual print judging - although of a very high standard leaves a lot to be desired whne it comes to open mindedness.

SO I agree whole heartedly

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #20 on:** November 19, 2009, 09:41:25 AM »

I have been using Photoshop since version 2.51(1995?). Rarely when doing my own stuff do I ever do more than curves and spotting sometimes I try to mimic paper tone like Record Rapid with duotones.
For me it is just a electronic version of my darkroom (which I no longer have due to expanding family) although I feel even the best digital print falls some way short of silver prints. I have come to the conclusion it must be the image is inside the paper under the top coat where as digital inkjets the ink sinks though the surface-they look different.
I can't get that wonderful 'luminous glow' or whatever you want to call it, although I do like some paper surfaces with ink like the art types.

jessthespringer · « **Reply #21 on:** November 19, 2009, 11:13:36 AM »

More interesting points, good discussion. Thanks everyone.

I take the points about being true to the neg and trying to retain purity of the picture, but, traditional prints and alternative process prints, once the photographer/printer is finished printing can look very different from the starting print.

Black & White Photography magazines monthly printing feature, where two printers will show different interpretations of the same neg is a very interesting read. Interesting to see different styles and approaches in the darkroom.

I know the textures thing is something that bothers a lot of people, it's something I have been experimenting with, have made a few prints (digital light jet from scanned neg) and was happy with how they turned out. The next step for me is to figure out how I can do something the same in the darkroom. I can foresee a fair amount of paper wastage in the near future...

So, is that not part of a creative process? Having an idea, then figuring out how to get to the end print?

I've no doubt there are boundaries, but they don't seem clear, at least not to me.

I don't like inkjet prints either, I don't think anything beats a wet print. Maybe that's part of the problem, the lack of printing, it seems an awful lot of pictures never make it past online galleries, they never get printed, but what looks good on screen and good on paper can be two different things...

A Photographer & Digital Artist (if that is the correct term) I like called, Benedict Campbell said in an interview, he felt sorry for younger photographers these days as many of them are missing out on working in a darkroom and learning the skill of making a good print (he himself worked as a printer for David Bailey for a number of years) they are let loose with photoshop and imaging software without have much of an idea of what makes good prints.

That makes a world of sense to me. And, with my own reasoning, using PS to make textured prints is helping me figure in my own head of where to at least be able to make a start trying to recreate the process in the darkroom.

Arse about face a bit maybe... lol.

Again, let me say, this is an honest question. I'm fairly new to photography and am very much fumbling my way around.

Thanks again all.

Sinead

moominsean · « **Reply #22 on:** November 19, 2009, 02:46:27 PM »

it all really comes down to what you enjoy doing. i have a digital camera...i use it to take photos of my dog and cameras. but for many people, digital is the way to go. some people love to sit and fiddle in photoshop for hours (i used to for work so i know how). i personally enjoy the physical aspect of film. i like trying to make the film do what i want, as opposed to shooting whatever and then making a bunch of changes with my computer. scanning is already too much time spent on the computer!

hookstrapped · « **Reply #23 on:** November 19, 2009, 02:54:31 PM »

For scanned film, I use photoshop for the healing brush to get rid of specks and squigglies (the most valuable thing for me about PS), levels, contrast, saturation, sharpening, and very rarely cloning. Also resizing. I don't even know how to use layers.

LT · « **Reply #24 on:** November 19, 2009, 03:15:54 PM »

When I talk about being true to the negative, I guess I am saying that I am being true the sense of a photographic (analogue) process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being creative in the darkroom, my print plans are testament to my long and (probably over) complicated stretching of the negative's information. And similarly, this is also true in photoshop.

That is one of the reasons why I enjoy doing the Printer's art features in the mag when I am asked to contribute. Whether I'm collaborating with a p'shop user or a fellow darkroom printer, the whole issue of interpretation can often be very illuminating - although generally we just turn out virtually the same print.

I draw a personal line where it stops being photography and becomes a graphic art. Nothing wrong with this per se, but it's place isnt in a photography gallery or forum. I can still appreciate it. You're not going to get much of a strong minded debate here though Sinead - we're generally a very affable & laid back lot ... provided you don't mention the D word in a camera context

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #25 on:** November 19, 2009, 11:02:48 PM »

I most certainly hope I did not upset anyone..I sometimes open my mouth way to wide and then need to insert foot inorder for their not to be a big gaping hole...but I was just trying to be honest and make a point..photoshop is a truly wonderful thing..just not always used with the best of taste..I will go home now..

Nigel · « **Reply #26 on:** November 20, 2009, 08:48:18 AM »

I was just composing my post when I read Diane's. And there's really nothing I need to add, except 'well said'!

LT · « **Reply #27 on:** November 20, 2009, 10:03:11 AM »

Quote from: Diane Peterson on November 19, 2009, 11:02:48 PM

I most certainly hope I did not upset anyone..

Reading through the thread, I cant see that you have Diane. Your opinion pretty much represents the majority here I think.

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #28 on:** November 22, 2009, 04:14:08 PM »

Late to the party, but, I guess all I am every trying to do is arrive back at the place where I clicked the shutter. Nothing more and nothing less, I want to see on my screen what I saw on the day.

jessthespringer · « **Reply #29 on:** November 23, 2009, 10:29:38 AM »

Ah, Leon, you are that Leon...
I like those features, always interesting. Wasn't really looking for a debate, just an idea of what other people thought.

Quote from: Diane Peterson on November 19, 2009, 11:02:48 PM

I most certainly hope I did not upset anyone..I sometimes open my mouth way to wide and then need to insert foot inorder for their not to be a big gaping hole...but I was just trying to be honest and make a point..photoshop is a truly wonderful thing..just not always used with the best of taste..I will go home now..

Me too. I hope I didn't upset anyone either. Am also skilled at putting my feet in it

Thanks again everyone.