civilized ku # 956 ~ Q&A

Red shirt under The Egg ~ Empire State Plaza - Albany, NY • click to embiggenNow that I've had a couple days to settle in and do some pictures-made-last-week processing, I'm able to answer a few of the questions that have been asked over the past week. First amongst them are these 2 from life in pictures # 16:

Larry (no link provided) asked: I'm curious how your use of Photoshop composites fit into pictures "without resorting to "distortions" - cheap tricks, gear gimmicks, fanciful effects and manipulations.."

And, John Linn asked: Where do you stand on the use of polarizer and gradient filters?

In answer to John's question, I don't use a polarizer filter because I don't wear polarizer sunglasses. Consequently, I see reflections where ever they exist and, since I picture what I see, I don't use a polarizer filter.

Gradient filters are a whole nuther matter. I really, really, really, dislike them. Or, I should say, I really, really, really dislike the pictures made with them. Now, I'm not saying that a gradient filter can not be used with some degree of subtlety, but that is rarely the case. Most pictures made with gradient filters are grossly out of whack, tonal wise - foregrounds are always way too bright and open - looks like they were lit by a giant soft lightbox rather than by the ambient light from the sky - relative to the darker saturated skies typically found in these pictures. The result is a picture that, to my eyes and sensibilities, looks crudely cut and pasted together from 2 distinctly different images.

This whacked tonal look is especially apparent in landscape pictures which include water in the foreground (even if it's just puddle-sized) - the reflection of the sky in the water is always way too light relative to the gradient filter darkened sky. (HINT to gradient filter users - reflections on water are always darker than the reflected scene.)

Needless to state, I don't not own, much less use, a gradient filter. Why bother when you can achieve much smoother, delicate, and realistic results with PS masks and blending techniques?

Which brings me to Larry's question.

I do not consider my PS "composites" - I'm not entirely certain what Larry means by "composites" - to be distortions. Every step in my PS processing routine is undertaken with the goal of producing a result that is as close (as the medium and its apparatus allow) to the reality of what existed in front of my camera and as faithful (as the medium and its apparatus allow) to how the human eye would see it.

I am not interested in playing (as Sally Eauclaire wrote in her book the new color photography) the role of god's art director,

...their lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than recreates on-site observations ... [D]rawing upon the Hudson River School's legacy in painting, they burden it (their pictures) with ever coarser effects. Rather than humbly seek out the "spirit of fact", they assume the role of God's art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive.

The only visual element I create in my PS processing, one which might be considered a "distortion", is that of the corner vignette - despite the fact that "naturally" occurring lens induced vignetting has been part and parcel of the medium since its inception, continuing to the present day. However, even that "distortion" is aimed at replicating the characteristics of human vision - when the unmoving eye fixes upon an object - a fixed stare - the only thing sharply defined is that which is in the center of the field of vision. That which falls in the peripheral field of vision is far less defined and "soft".

With characteristic of human vision in mind and with the notion that the camera is the ultimate "fixed stare / unmoving eye" device, I add the corner vignette to my pictures. Whether anyone considers that to be a "cheap trick / fanciful effect" or not, is up to the viewer to decide. However, it is worth noting that the only ones who seem to notice and/or care about the corner vignette are other photographers, especially the gear-heads and techno-freaks. For just about everyone else, the corner vignette is essentially invisible.

BTW, more answers to other questions coming tomorrow.