Manipulating Photographs

     I sharpened this illustration slightly in Photoshop!                                                                                       C. Leck

“Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop!”
by Charlie Leck

A gift came for me from daughter Cynthia. It’s a lovely book she bought for me at the Metropolitan Museum of Art where she had attended an exhibit called: Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop. The book sent bears the same title and is a wonderful discussion about how the great photography masters of the early twentieth century used the tools of the dark room to skillfully adjust and manipulate photographs for production – far different, in the end, than the photograph that the camera originally took.

The book was written and assembled by Mia Fineman, who is the Assistant Curator in the Department of Photographs at The Metropolitan. The exhibit was sponsored by Adobe Corporation, the creator and owner of Adobe Photoshop. The book includes an interesting statement by Maria Yap, the senior Director in Adobe’s Digital Imaging Department. In part, it says this…

“As the proud corporate sponsor of “Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop,” Adobe has a special interest in the show’s thesis. For more than twenty years – since its first release in 1990 – Adobe Photoshop software has been accused of undermining photographic truthfulness. The implicit assumption has been that photographs shot before 1990 captured the unvarnished truth and that the manipulations made possible by Photoshop compromised that truth.

“Now, “Faking It” punctures this assumption, presenting two hundred works that demonstrate the many ways photographs have been manipulated since the early days of the medium to serve artistry, novelty, politics, news, advertising, fashion, and other photographic purposes…”

At a wonderful course I took last year at the Minneapolis Center for Photography, the instructor, Steve Bie, showed us an example of the way the American master of photography, Ansel Adams, would work in the dark room to greatly enhance a photograph that his camera took. This kind of touching up and altering of photographs has been going on for a long, long time.

In this book that my daughter sent me, another example of the way Ansel Adams worked a photograph is illustrated by using his very famous work “Moonrise.” The original is a fine photograph. The final, printed version, as enhanced by burning and dodging, among other things, is an extraordinary work of art. This paragraph explaining Adam’s attitude and his method in quite instructive…

“Ansel Adams, another renowned proponent of straight photography as well as an accomplished musician, often compared photography to music: ‘The negative is like a musical score,’ he said; ‘the making of the print is the performance.’ Nowhere is the virtuoso musicianship of straight photography more apparent than in Adams’ iconic image Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. He took the photograph of a nearly full moon rising over the village of Hernandez on a late-fall afternoon in 1941, just as the sun dipped behind the mountains, its dying rays illuminating the little white crosses in the village cemetery. In his rush to capture the fleeting moment, Adams had time to make only a single photograph. With no light meter handy, he based the exposure time on some quick mental calculations, and the resulting large-format negative was less than perfect, with a severely underexposed foreground and an overexposed sky. For several years, Adams struggled to deliver a great performance of this flawed score, expertly burning and dodging prints to darken the sky and increase the contrast in the town below; in 1948 he even altered the negative itself by chemically intensifying the foreground.”

The final version of the photograph, after Adams spent hours and hours on it, is stunning, remarkable and beautiful.

Is it phony? No, it is much more like what the eye of Ansel Adams saw and what he very much wanted his camera to capture.

“This Moonrise – the version that has been reproduced on countless posters and Sierra Club calendars – is a skillfully crafted artifact, an artist’s dramatic interpretation of a lackluster negative. This moonrise may resemble what Adams saw – or imagined he saw – when he stopped his car on the shoulder of a New Mexico highway in 1941, but it is certainly not a ‘straight’ rendition of the image recorded by the mechanical eye of the camera.”

The exhibit at the Metropolitan showed-off photographs that had been altered and manipulated for reasons of art, comedy, advertising or just plain fun.

Certainly, the entire process is made easier today by the invention of Photoshop, but it would be wrong to say that the invention allows us to do something today that couldn’t be done before. Perhaps it allows us to do these things more conveniently and quickly – and even more precisely – but photographic manipulation has been part of the art for a long, long time. It has been especially going on in portrait photography for a hundred years or more.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Photoshop Gets a Bum Wrap

This photograph of one of my grandchildren
was taken by an inexpensive camera. In Photoshop™
I was able to burn some of the edges and areas of
the photograph to force the eye to the areas of
importance; that is, the areas the photographer
intended to be the subject of the photo. The
technique is no different than those used in
darkrooms 50 years ago – as a matter of fact,
that’s where the term ‘burning’ comes from.
The old, darkroom masters also used a system
they called ‘dodging’ to lighten areas to draw
the eye to them. Nothing really changes.
It’s just that it’s much easier and faster now.

It still takes a good photographer to get a great photograph!
by Charlie Leck

This past summer I was at a great photography exhibit at our community art center. I was amazed at the quality of the photographs on exhibit, but a friend who wandered over by me was less than enthused. She began a long rant about how she hated Photoshop™, claiming that it made photography too easy for the masses and now “everyone” thought he/she was a good photographer. She thought it was too easy to repair one’s mistakes and “fix up” things that should have been taken care of at the time the photograph was taken. She was a film user, she proudly announced, and she had no intention of going over to digital.Too bad, I thought. You’re missing out on great fun!

She is too nice a lady with whom to argue in such a public setting (we were packed shoulder to shoulder), so I let it go. The comments have hung around in my mind ever since she made them, though, and I need to rebut them. So, I wondered, why not use my blog to do it.

Lately I’ve been watching some video tutorials on blurring, dodging and burning in Photoshop.™ In watching the tutorial I was amazed to discover how “the old time photographers” used these studio techniques in their development laboratories to alter, enhance or improve the photograph from what the camera’s lens had actually taken. Ah, hah! It’s true. That darkroom was where so many of the great photographers, such as Ansel Adams, went to work to correct problems in the film as the camera recorded the photograph. They were master photographers because they knew how to use the tricks that the dark room would allow them to apply. They could enhance or soften contrast. They could burn or blur certain areas to force the eye to focus on more essential elements in the photograph; and they could lighten or brighten still other areas to make them the highlighted elements in a photo. These great photographers also had correction techniques that allowed them to remove evidence of dust that may have been on their lens and they knew how to fix a scratch here and there. If they got unwanted reflections, there were darkroom techniques to alter those problems, too.

Photoshop™ has just made the whole process of photograph enhancement and improvement much easier. Many of the wonderful instructors from whom I’ve taken Photoshop™ or Lightroom™ tutorials are themselves masters of film photography. They explain that taking the photograph is only half the process in producing great film photographs. The other half takes place in the darkroom.

I recently applied some of the burning techniques I’ve been learning to a photograph that someone else sent me – of one of my grandchildren – and I was flabbergasted at the results and the improvement the techniques made. And, they were really very minor adjustments. And also, they were the kind of adjustments that could have been made to film in the darkroom.

Sometimes it’s very difficult to accept change. My friend, that day at the art center, was blown away by the colorfulness, the crispness and the perfection of the photos she was viewing. She shouldn’t think that any old photographer could have done that just because he/she had Photoshop™ available. No, these were great and wonderful photographs, first and foremost, because they had been taken by a wonderful photographer. I see evidence of this all the time. I’m getting to be a master of Photoshop™, but I’m still unable to get the kind of production from my own work that the truly talented, artistic photographers can get.