I recently subscribed to CameraArts magazine without really knowing too much about the publication. A few weeks ago I received my first issue, and one of the first articles I read was an editorial authored by George DeWolfe entitled “The Master Print: The Photoshop Medicine Show” (CameraArts, January/February 2007). After finishing the article, I immediately knew two things:
i) that subscribing to the magazine was a good decision and
ii) that I wanted to write a blog post about that particular article.
Writing about the article, however, turned out to be much more difficult than I had anticipated. The reason for this is that I have changed my opinion about it several times and, in fact, it still seems difficult for me to sort out my feelings on the topic. I actually scrapped the idea of writing this post, but have come back to it with the realization that if I have trouble sorting it out in my own mind, then it would probably be interesting to others and hopefully make for some thought provoking commentary. I would certainly be interested in hearing peoples’ opinions.
Before I get further into this, I do, however, want to make a few things clear. First off, I have a deep respect for Mr. DeWolfe, even if I don’t necessarily agree with him 100%. I can only aspire to be as accomplished an artist and photographer as he is. In fact, I own his book entitled “George DeWolfe’s Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop”. Secondly, I e-mailed Tom Gibbons, the assistant editor of CameraArts, who encouraged me to write about the DeWolfe editorial, even if I didn’t totally agree with what was said. He even went further, agreeing to post DeWolfe’s entire article on line so that that readers of this blog could have a look at it for themselves…….thanks Tom.
The reason I was so sure that it was wise to have subscribed to Camera Arts is that you just have to respect a magazine that will print something that is non-mainstream and, in fact, potentially inflammatory to a large number of people who reside in the mainstream.
OK, OK, I have beat around the bush long enough. What is this all about?
Mr. DeWolfe’s thesis is essentially that a whole “cottage industry” has grown up around Photoshop to extol the virtues and abilities of the software, to the point where the creative process is pushed aside and the ‘tricks’ have become what is important. These tricks are then used with the ultimate goal of selling books, software and other miscellaneous items. The real problem is that these tricks have been developed as an end in and of themselves, not as solutions to a creative problem. He implies that in order to sell Photoshop paraphernalia the cart is allowed to come before the horse; a technique in search of a use is born.
He certainly comes out with gloves on and ‘swinging’ when he states that, in regards to Photoshop, “Unfortunately, there are those who spend much of their time talking too much about it, and they are (unnamed of course) the focus (target) of this article.” From what follows, it is clear he is speaking of the NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals) and the so-called Photoshop gurus. The annual Photoshop trade show is likened to the “selling of snake oil”.
The specific issue called into question is that these ‘gurus’ are really software people and not photographers. Their goal is to come up with tricks that Photoshop can do and essentially sell the trick and move on, whether or not the technique has a creatively useful application. Soon, the ultimate goal of making creative and emotionally stirring images is forgotten or made secondary in the minds of these gurus. DeWolfe feels that the true goal of Photoshop should be to enable the photographer to take their images, their art, and “make it human, making it match what the eye sees.”
Ultimately, he states that “Photoshop is a necessary evil in the photographer’s arsenal of tools today. It is a bloated application that contains much more than you need to make a masterpiece. As a point in fact, very few tools are needed to make a masterpiece, only the ones that you absolutely need to get the job done and no more. Keeping Photoshop simple and its use maintained with clarity should be a photographer’s mission in life. Lightroom, the new Adobe application for photographers, is making a decent dent in this problem, and I applaud its simplicity and workflow ease.”
When I first finished reading DeWolfe’s article, my initial response was “Bravo, someone has finally said what needs to be said!” Of course, I felt, everything that he states is true, and no one until now has had the guts to come right out and say it. I mean how many Photoshop ‘how to’ books, tutorials, and podcasts are really necessary?
However, upon thinking about these issues further, I am not so sure that I still agree with my initial gut response. I would like to wait until tomorrow to finish this post and talk about my current thoughts regarding this issue. In the meantime, I am hoping that anyone that might be interested will click over to the pdf file that Tom Gibbons at CameraArts has so graciously provided and give it a read…..perhaps take the opportunity to think about it overnight. I would be interested in hearing what others think about the editorial.
The article can be accessed by clicking here and then clicking on the title of the article (“The Master Print: The Photoshop Medicine Show) that is listed under ‘Web Exclusives’.
By the way, while you are over at the CameraArts website, it might be interesting for you poke around and see what else they have to offer. Take a look at the magazine and consider subscribing. As I mentioned, I have only received one issue so far, but look at what that one issue has led me to do……….TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW
7 comments:
Wow, I am not even sure where to start with this one. You certainly picked an interesting one to blog about Howard!!
First of all, I think the author should give a little more credit to the thousands of photographers that see Photoshop as simply another tool available to them. I am really not understanding the position of how it essentially corrupts the creative process. There are more photographers than I could ever list who are just as talented behind the camera as they are in front of the computer.
He discredits those that know more about Photoshop versus their skills as a photographer, essentially stating that unless they are an Ansel Adams - don't trust a single word of what they say in applying a tool towards photography. I really don't see the relevance at all. I liken it to a situation of a clerk in a hardware store.
That clerk may be the world's expert on the variety and types of hammers available to a carpenter that comes into the store. A carpenter comes in looking for a particular hammer to help him solve a problem in a house they are building. Does the fact that the clerk may not be able to build a house mean what he says about hammers should be ignored as rubbish? That clerk may be a carpenter also, and every bit as capable as the customer - or he may just know a lot about hammers. To key the two together with as significant a relationship as the author portrays is just unrealistic and a gross misunderstanding of the tool versus the art.
He makes some obvious statements about the capitalization of the complexity of Photoshop. Yeah - we all wish it was simpler! Certainly for every way to do one thing, there are at least three alternate ways to get the same end result.
The proponents of each way will argue until they are blue in the face on the merits of each. And certainly, a lot of people make money off books, classes, etc - capitalism at its finest. What is the point?
Photoshop is a very mature application and extends so far beyond just the needs of photographers. I think most people will admit that they only use a small fraction of its total capabilities. But then, they use it for what they need it for - and it is part of the reason it is such a popular app because it does so many different things for different audiences.
He gives some kudos to Lightroom for its simplicity. But how is Lightroom any different a tool in manipulation of the creative process. Lightroom offers extensive possibilities in manipulating a raw file. Adding to its power is the ability to create a vast number of Develop Presets. This gives the photographer options to develop raw files in ways perhaps they never realized when clicking the shutter, or simplifies the manner in which they ultimately convert that image into a sepia, black and white, or specialty tonality. An expert in Lightroom may be able to create a preset that mimics a particular color effect, but perhaps may not apply them to images of someone's liking. Does this also mean knowledge of the hammer is rubbish?
The Luminosity actions you and I have discussed - don't those open up another level of control that perhaps someone may never knew was possible, and making it easier to boot? Again - more tools.
Some people may approach Photoshop in a more documentary manner to try to replicate what they saw - others may try to use it to represent how they felt. Each method has its own merits, and a vision unique to the artist. It seems the article is missing the point. I certainly don't mean to crusade as a Photoshop defender, but I think the author should give more credit to those that use it as only a tool in the process of doing what was always done. Ugh, this is too long already ... I'll shut up now. :)
I think I have to agree with mark on this. In addition to the creative process, I learn a lot of tips at those workshops that simply help my workflow (just because you're creative, doesn't mean you can't be efficient). Besides, several times, things I learned didn't seem to have any practical application at first--then, months later, they would prove to be solutions to problems I was having.
I'm not saying there aren't valid points in Mr. DeWolfe's article; I just think he's overly harsh.
I'll check back for the rest of Howard's post later.
I would like to point out contradictions in the original article.
DeWolfe says "So basically photographers are missing an extremely important step in the process of art -— making it human —-- making it match what
the eye sees."
He implies in the article that photoshop is used by all and sundry to create images which is not what the eye sees.
I strongly disagree with this notion. Atleast, I and the photographers I know, are essentially using photoshop as a tool to correct the images they have photographed and what they have actually seen. Isnt that the primary use all photographers use it for? How would you change the image, if you do not have a base image in your mind? Isnt this base image the one which the eye has already seen and could'nt come in the actual photograph take due to various reasons.
He likes Lightroom but abhors Photoshop. But I wonder is there any difference in both. He talks about techies and software geeks who peddle Photoshop to the photographic community, but arent they just providing tools and it is upto us to use it.
He is right in one statement: "Creativity is in the person first, the world second, and in Photoshop, not at all." He is right, unless you have a good photograph can you use photoshop to create an image which the eye has already seen?
Yes, there are Photoshop books on the shelves for not tech people to understand the nitty gritties of photoshop in detail. A photographer may not be able to know at times what a demosaicing is of a RAW image is and how it affects your image and that is what these books try to tell you. They do not tell you how you need to take a photograph. They tell you what you can do to correct a photograph to what you have seen or what you want.
Isnt processing done even with film negatives? Just not done on the computer.
Quoting him again "The original purpose of a photographer is take great pictures." He is right about that. But "Taking" a great picture is what he needs to understand is now more that just clicking the shutter but processing it to give the same image as what the eye has seen.
I haven't yet digested everything in the article or reply or comments - however in general I'll be in the "Photoshop is a tool - use it or not as you please". The vision is what counts. I suspect a lot of people see the ever increasing number of technically well produced photographs as a danger- diluting the medium. However the ability to do this does not make finding the initial vision any easier. I think the main danger is that looking at and understanding photographs is becoming a throwaway, bubblegum, 10 second attention span culture because of the volume and ubiquity of images. It is true that gimmicky things like HDR etc can lead to a false impression of creativity, but they will die a death once the novelty wears off.
I'd like to comment on "the pilgrim"s last paragrah. Although I agree with much of what he says, I do not think that the criteria of a great photograph has changed at all over the years
Most of the time I'm not interested in making a print of just what my eye has seen. I'm really more interested in producing a print that expresses the emotion of what I've seen.
That said, I do think that some of the tools are overused. Just because you can make the image razor sharp doesn't mean you always should. Just because you can adjust tonalities in different parts of the images doesn't mean you always should or that you should push these tools to the limit.
I'm not worried about who develops more software or what that software will do. I'll just seek out the tools that I need. I really don't care if they were made by a software geek who isn't a good photographer.
Now and then I like to wax philosophical on these types of topics and now I'm tempted to subscribe to that magazine!
I wrote an article a little while ago about digital post-processing and the somewhat strange debate among photographers about whether all of this work that happens after the shutter is released is necessary for the work to become art or whether it undermines the purity of photography as a craft.
I call it Is Digital Post-Processing Illegal?
Maybe it'll give everyone here something more to think about!
Thanks Aaron, great article!
Post a Comment