Recently I ran across a blog entry by a photographer whose work I had been admiring.  His technique is somewhat unique (at least it appears to be), in that nearly every exposure he does is a long exposure time (30 seconds to a minute or two) using high f/stops or more often very late light, and using split neutral density filters.  The quality of the images is magical and intriguing ... not completely realistic, but not really artificial.  By applying these tools and techniques he creates some very compelling and wonderful images when capturing.

However, in his blog he discusses the appropriateness of “Photoshop”.  Now he didn’t come right out and say you shouldn’t do it, but the comments he made implied that using Photoshop for substantial image altering techniques is perhaps less than appropriate.  A couple of examples he used were putting a moon where there wasn’t one, or cloning out a car being lazy ... instead you should wait for the car to leave.

There are discussions like this all over the internet.  In this case he poses this more as a question to ask oneself, but he also implied his opinion that Photoshop manipulation is taboo.  I find it sort of a paradox that someone who feels very comfortable manipulating the capture of the data to create these very wonderful and compelling images that aren’t very realistic feels doing so in post processing is perhaps inappropriate.

His two examples are intriguing.  Let’s talk about the car. We’ve all had to deal with unwanted elements in images.  People walking through a scene, some trash where it didn’t belong, or perhaps an annoying camper in the middle of a picturesque meadow.  Why is it lazy to remove the offending object with Photoshop?  Why should I wait ... and perhaps lose the light I’m trying to capture ... so I can feel my image is “purer”?  What if it is impossible to get the image without the annoyances so Photoshop is the only option?  Does that “justify” it somehow, or am I supposed to just say too bad and skip taking the picture? Is waiting or heaven forbid bypassing on capturing the image because of these types of things actually the lazy way?  I’ll be honest ... I’ll stand at a spot for 10 minutes trying to get an image without the people rather than having to use multiple captures or cloning in Photoshop ... it’s a lot less work.  But I won’t skip the shot because of things like this.  I have no problem cloning out a person if that is the image I’m trying to capture and that’s my only choice.

What about the moon?  Landscape photographers have included the moon where it didn’t exist for almost as long as photography has been around.  The cover image of a book I own, The World’s Top Photographers :  Landscape shows a crescent moon in a rock formation.  This image was created by double exposing two images on 4x5 sheet film.  Granted doing the same thing in Photoshop is much simpler ... substantially so.  But you can achieve the exact same result visually in Photoshop. So is one more “pure” or “honest”?  Does it matter?

Certainly Photoshop can be carried to an extreme, and personally I also try to use Photoshop as little as possible.  My images rarely undergo any treatment in Photoshop other than to mimic what I did using traditional darkroom techniques to enhance the image.  But I don’t get wrapped up in having to get in in the camera.  I have no problem using two images and a mask to create an image similar to one created with split ND filters.  I’ve cloned 2x4’s out of stream, and moved a flag stick on a golf green to a position I felt helped the composition.

I guess I could have gone back every day for a month until the flagstick was there, but then who knows if the light would have been right?  Lately I’ve been messing around with multiple captures and HDR techniques.  Is using these tools to get around the limitations of capture equipment somehow dishonest or inappropriate?  Is it OK to using a split ND filter, which in it’s simplest form is an HDR capture technique, but doing so in post processing not as pure or acceptable?  Where is the “line” here ... or is there one?

Of course there is no answer, only personal philosophies.  Each person has to answer this for themselves, and be comfortable with their decision.  What is unfortunate is how some of those that “don’t” use Photoshop are often condescending  ... as though there work is purer and they are better than those that do.  They often tout this philosophy as though it makes their images more valuable.  So taking a 1 minute exposure using Split ND filters of a scene that you can barely see when standing there, and then printing it as though it was evening or even daylight is OK?  I don’t have a problem with this ... the images are wonderful.  But don’t criticize me because I choose to take 3 captures and combine them in Photoshop for a similar effect, albeit with much more control (and a lot more work).

Even when Photoshop is carried to an extreme ... who am I to judge?  Either I like the image or I don’t, and if Photoshop made it more intriguing or more magical and enjoyable, so be it.

Of course that brings up another interesting perspective ... that of viewer distrust.  I have some images which have very little work done on them that some people just can’t believe haven’t been extensively  Photoshopped (such as this one)

I also have images I have improved substantially because of Photoshop and don’t look much like the original capture at all (the original of the following image was taken in late light under pretty foggy conditions and took quite a bit of work), and they look very natural and normal, so no questions about Photoshop. 

This adds another element to our own philosophy.  After all it is troubling to explain to people that the image is very real, not enhanced or embellished by Photoshop, and having the viewer think differently of it.

So I struggle with this a little myself. After all, I’m not a photojournalist ... but I do want my images to be believable and appreciated as great photographs.

Just some idle thoughts ... worth some time to think about if you are passionate about landscape photography.