Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
We have two recent examples of misunderstandings about photographs by some. of most talented photgraphers, where staring revealed imagined or real "aritfacts.
1. Analog Photography: First we had an obvious rectangle of bright light on the thigh of one of Maris Rusis models.
In the world of today, where a photgraph means "a digital
recording made on silicon wafers", the travails of classic
users of actual film photography are a lost galaxy away.
It turns out that that bright rectangle was just bright light from the setting sun back illuninating the model and showing through a gap between her thigh and a tree to her right. I know the issue. We have no flash and no reflector handy and a back lit model. In order to get the model's face imaged, one has to risk blowouts of tangential light from behind.
Unlike the digital recording of light flux, one cannot manipulate the densely-packed silver grains. in the negative to not appear whenre the light is bright. There are no electronic controls. I know that instinctively since I have suffered from such an override dynamic range of the scene illumination. So for me, looking at Maris Rusis posted jpg image, via a $45 scanner), I know what I am looking at and that the contact print made by flashing for a second with one light, cannot dodge and burn to correct the print as we do in Photoshop.
Now, for an exhibition print, that same neagive can be crafted further ro dodge and burn so that the dark areas are opened up and the over-exposed areas are tamed somewhat. Different papers do what is equivalent in digital photography of adding a contrast S-curve. Film photographers who craft their own prints, become very skilled in how the paper is exposed under an enlarger, use of a wand for dosging and composition of chemicals and amount of agitation in developing the exposed paper.
Here, however, Maris simply placed his original negative on the snesitive paper and flashed it while counting One-Ansel Adams, Two Ansel Adams, Three Ansel Adams for the needed number of seconds.
It's very simple and just a good representation of the scene to go into a cheap scanner to provide us with a glimpse of the photographer's work.
When I see "flaws" I am not concenred as I know there could be many hours of dsrkroom work before that negative becomes an exhibition print.
Now, I am a cheat. I scan my film on a high class commerical instrument, when I see the negative has great potential. I then have no conscience in using my capabilities in digital post processing to allocate colors to tonalities and alter hues to provide my impression of how the scene could and should be presented. But in the old days, in my father-in-laws dark room, I would have been expelled and shunned had I even mentioned digital never mind scanned a negative instead of spending hours printing it properly!
Digital Photography We all know about jpg artifacts and every so often someone points out that not working in wider gamut Prophoto RGB or Adobe RGB but using sRGB, throws away some 95% of the data in the original files.
Here's an example. Nicolas Claris, as you know, is a successful architectural, marine and noted winery photographer. He competes in a rare environment where only the most true to life colors and detail rich images are acceptable.
I have watched him work. I have stood by for hours as he checks colors under standard 5,000 degree Kelvin light and the outdoors at midday to be sure his colors are ture to life. His obsession with truth means that he puts his contracts on the line if someone tries to edit color bypassing his control. Most of us would just be satsfied with a fat check!
But how on earth does one share on a forum like OPF or a facebook
blog his work. Because of bandwidth limitations, he converts to a
narrower color space, sRGB, discarding most of the data and then
sharpening sufficient to make the image presentable on the web.
So this is what we get:
Nicolas Claris: Boat picture by Rocks
Cutout by Asher Kelman from original and enlarged x 2
Marked up to shopw jpg and sharpening artifacts.
If one sees any jpg, then one has to expect artifacts. When there has been sharpening, these can become even more evident if we "pixel peep".
The learning lesson is
1. to be aware of the process and the person doing the work. I do a lot of collage work. However I pride myself in making the final image appear to be taken as a single shot.
2. Don't allow beautiful jopg files to seduce you to not use the space-consuming RAW files digital cameras produce. However, if you are a commerical wedding pohotgrapher or do mass merchandising product photography, if the customer wants OOTC jpg, that's fine, as these are not meant to be lasting products of art.
3. Try to show jpgs for competitions in the lowest compression and the largest size possible. Where one can, show prints! For sharpening, use methods that limit or remove halos. I personally remove sharpening from esdges of flowers but allow it on the interior. It is not nevessary to have an entire picture sharpened.
Asher
1. Analog Photography: First we had an obvious rectangle of bright light on the thigh of one of Maris Rusis models.
In the world of today, where a photgraph means "a digital
recording made on silicon wafers", the travails of classic
users of actual film photography are a lost galaxy away.
It turns out that that bright rectangle was just bright light from the setting sun back illuninating the model and showing through a gap between her thigh and a tree to her right. I know the issue. We have no flash and no reflector handy and a back lit model. In order to get the model's face imaged, one has to risk blowouts of tangential light from behind.
Unlike the digital recording of light flux, one cannot manipulate the densely-packed silver grains. in the negative to not appear whenre the light is bright. There are no electronic controls. I know that instinctively since I have suffered from such an override dynamic range of the scene illumination. So for me, looking at Maris Rusis posted jpg image, via a $45 scanner), I know what I am looking at and that the contact print made by flashing for a second with one light, cannot dodge and burn to correct the print as we do in Photoshop.
Now, for an exhibition print, that same neagive can be crafted further ro dodge and burn so that the dark areas are opened up and the over-exposed areas are tamed somewhat. Different papers do what is equivalent in digital photography of adding a contrast S-curve. Film photographers who craft their own prints, become very skilled in how the paper is exposed under an enlarger, use of a wand for dosging and composition of chemicals and amount of agitation in developing the exposed paper.
Here, however, Maris simply placed his original negative on the snesitive paper and flashed it while counting One-Ansel Adams, Two Ansel Adams, Three Ansel Adams for the needed number of seconds.
It's very simple and just a good representation of the scene to go into a cheap scanner to provide us with a glimpse of the photographer's work.
When I see "flaws" I am not concenred as I know there could be many hours of dsrkroom work before that negative becomes an exhibition print.
Now, I am a cheat. I scan my film on a high class commerical instrument, when I see the negative has great potential. I then have no conscience in using my capabilities in digital post processing to allocate colors to tonalities and alter hues to provide my impression of how the scene could and should be presented. But in the old days, in my father-in-laws dark room, I would have been expelled and shunned had I even mentioned digital never mind scanned a negative instead of spending hours printing it properly!
Digital Photography We all know about jpg artifacts and every so often someone points out that not working in wider gamut Prophoto RGB or Adobe RGB but using sRGB, throws away some 95% of the data in the original files.
Here's an example. Nicolas Claris, as you know, is a successful architectural, marine and noted winery photographer. He competes in a rare environment where only the most true to life colors and detail rich images are acceptable.
I have watched him work. I have stood by for hours as he checks colors under standard 5,000 degree Kelvin light and the outdoors at midday to be sure his colors are ture to life. His obsession with truth means that he puts his contracts on the line if someone tries to edit color bypassing his control. Most of us would just be satsfied with a fat check!
But how on earth does one share on a forum like OPF or a facebook
blog his work. Because of bandwidth limitations, he converts to a
narrower color space, sRGB, discarding most of the data and then
sharpening sufficient to make the image presentable on the web.
So this is what we get:
Nicolas Claris: Boat picture by Rocks
Cutout by Asher Kelman from original and enlarged x 2
Marked up to shopw jpg and sharpening artifacts.
If one sees any jpg, then one has to expect artifacts. When there has been sharpening, these can become even more evident if we "pixel peep".
The learning lesson is
1. to be aware of the process and the person doing the work. I do a lot of collage work. However I pride myself in making the final image appear to be taken as a single shot.
2. Don't allow beautiful jopg files to seduce you to not use the space-consuming RAW files digital cameras produce. However, if you are a commerical wedding pohotgrapher or do mass merchandising product photography, if the customer wants OOTC jpg, that's fine, as these are not meant to be lasting products of art.
3. Try to show jpgs for competitions in the lowest compression and the largest size possible. Where one can, show prints! For sharpening, use methods that limit or remove halos. I personally remove sharpening from esdges of flowers but allow it on the interior. It is not nevessary to have an entire picture sharpened.
Asher
Last edited: