Stainless steel items photo retouch

white lightning wrote:

I am using CS2 and I’m trying to retouch stainless steel products such as fridge and kitchen items. I took the photos in ordinary lighting inside a room, no studio setup.

To bring out a stainless steel feel, I used a Pen tool to remove the background. Then I used Image > Adjustment > Desaturate to get rid of all the colors. Then I used Curve to brighten up the image and used Selective color’s Neutral mode to get rid of some of the black.
The images look ok but I’m still not fully satisfied. Am I following the right steps? or is there a better way to retouch stainless steel products?

Thanks

Although SS is, itself, colorless, wouldn’t it reflect colors from other objects in the room? Perhaps, after brightening up the object, you could restore a bit of color, maybe by reducing the transparency of your top layer a bit?

-Raf

—
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

On Dec 30, 6:27 pm, white lightning wrote:

I am using CS2 and I’m trying to retouch stainless steel products such as fridge and kitchen items. I took the photos in ordinary lighting inside a room, no studio setup.

To bring out a stainless steel feel, I used a Pen tool to remove the background. Then I used Image > Adjustment > Desaturate to get rid of all the colors. Then I used Curve to brighten up the image and used Selective color’s Neutral mode to get rid of some of the black.
The images look ok but I’m still not fully satisfied. Am I following the right steps? or is there a better way to retouch stainless steel products?

Thanks

I wouldn’t desaturate the image. Go to image and open Hue & Saturation. Use the drop-down menu at the top to get rid of unwanted color casts or add some color casts. Use the eye dropper tool at the lower right to select areas that you want to adjust. Stainless steel is like a blurry mirror so there is going to be some color in it.

On Dec 30, 6:27 pm, white lightning wrote:

I am using CS2 and I’m trying to retouch stainless steel products such as fridge and kitchen items. I took the photos in ordinary lighting inside a room, no studio setup.

To bring out a stainless steel feel, I used a Pen tool to remove the background. Then I used Image > Adjustment > Desaturate to get rid of all the colors. Then I used Curve to brighten up the image and used Selective color’s Neutral mode to get rid of some of the black.
The images look ok but I’m still not fully satisfied. Am I following the right steps? or is there a better way to retouch stainless steel products?

There are conventional representations for various metals that are based on our own subjective perception. Automotive chrome, for example, is generally represented as a mixture of earth tones and blue. Silver and nickel have warmer tones.

Look at product shots of other stainless steel items. Stainless steel is usually represented as slightly cooler than pure neutral, a very unsaturated blue.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

white lightning wrote:

I am using CS2 and I’m trying to retouch stainless steel products such as fridge and kitchen items. I took the photos in ordinary lighting inside a room, no studio setup.

To bring out a stainless steel feel, I used a Pen tool to remove the background. Then I used Image > Adjustment > Desaturate to get rid of all the colors. Then I used Curve to brighten up the image and used Selective color’s Neutral mode to get rid of some of the black.
The images look ok but I’m still not fully satisfied. Am I following the right steps? or is there a better way to retouch stainless steel products?

Thanks

Commerical?

Well, just by reading your message I don’t think I am fully satisfied either. Even I never photograph stainless steel product, but I think I can smell quite a bit of problem.

– Brighten – if I am not mistaken you are trying to say that the photo isn’t very good to begind with.

a. Too much underexpose then we are looking at NOISE, and color casting

b. In order to work with very detail photo you may need a DSLR camera. DSLR camera alone won’t do the trick but at least few basic requirements (1) top_of_the_line_LENS, (2) DSLR is good with low-light sitution.

For the low-light situation I would suggest to go with Canon DSLR. If you decide to go with Nikon then only the current newest (around 3 times more expensive than Canon) may do almost as good as Canon (mid range not the top)

Without the basic requirement then you will need lot of Photoshop work and may not be able to get the best you really want.

– Lighting – since I am an indoor photographer so lighting is what I do best. Studio strobes isn’t very expensive, or usually less expensive than top-noth flashes. And most pro and entry level DSLR and flash allow you to fire multiple flashes and wireless too.

*But* if you don’t have wireless flashes, external flash etc.. then you still can afford the TRIPOD to give you a brighter and better quality photo. And if you already have DSLR camera, then I would suggest to toss away the cheapie lens but learning to take advantage of the GOOD GLASS

– Retouching – "removing background", I really don’t know how good the *bright* stainless steel look against *bright* background, *unless* you mean "replacing" the background with darker color (unless the stainless steel doesn’t have stainless steel color).

But it seems like you forget to mention "MASKING" and "LAYER" which may be the must have. "Masking" there are several types of Masking, one is for removing other is for replacing, patching etc.. depending on how you use the Mask command.

– Color – Photoshop does have some problem with some color’s (channel) and especially the shinny look.

P.S. I can’t be able to picture what you have at your end.

On Jan 2, 11:56 am, Joel wrote:

white lightning wrote:

I am using CS2 and I’m trying to retouch stainless steel products such as fridge and kitchen items. I took the photos in ordinary lighting inside a room, no studio setup.

To bring out a stainless steel feel, I used a Pen tool to remove the background. Then I used Image > Adjustment > Desaturate to get rid of all the colors. Then I used Curve to brighten up the image and used Selective color’s Neutral mode to get rid of some of the black.

The images look ok but I’m still not fully satisfied. Am I following the right steps? or is there a better way to retouch stainless steel products?

Thanks

        Commerical?

        Well, just by reading your message I don’t think I am fully satisfied either.  Even I never photograph stainless steel product, but I think I can smell quite a bit of problem.

– Brighten – if I am not mistaken you are trying to say that the photo isn’t very good to begind with.

        a. Too much underexpose then we are looking at NOISE, and color casting
        b. In order to work with very detail photo you may need a DSLR camera.          DSLR camera alone won’t do the trick but at least few basic requirements          (1) top_of_the_line_LENS, (2) DSLR is good with low-light sitution.
          For the low-light situation I would suggest to go with Canon DSLR.  If          you decide to go with Nikon then only the current newest (around 3 times          more expensive than Canon) may do almost as good as Canon (mid range not          the top)

         Without the basic requirement then you will need lot of Photoshop work          and may not be able to get the best you really want.
– Lighting – since I am an indoor photographer so lighting is what I do    best.  Studio strobes isn’t very expensive, or usually less expensive         than top-noth flashes.  And most pro and entry level DSLR and flash allow         you to fire multiple flashes and wireless too.
        *But* if you don’t have wireless flashes, external flash etc.. then you          still can afford the TRIPOD to give you a brighter and better quality          photo.  And if you already have DSLR camera, then I would suggest to toss          away the cheapie lens but learning to take advantage of the GOOD GLASS
– Retouching – "removing background", I really don’t know how good the *bright* stainless steel look against *bright* background, *unless* you mean "replacing" the background with darker color (unless the stainless steel doesn’t have stainless steel color).

        But it seems like you forget to mention "MASKING" and "LAYER" which may be
the must have.  "Masking" there are several types of Masking, one is for removing other is for replacing, patching etc.. depending on how you use the Mask command.

– Color – Photoshop does have some problem with some color’s (channel) and especially the shinny look.

P.S.  I can’t be able to picture what you have at your end.

Another simple thing to try is checking which channel contains the most contrast. Duplicate it, and lay it on top of the others. Make that one about 50 (or less) opaque and then push the levels.

The ‘texture’ of the steel — which are really little bands (depending on the resolution) might jump up a little. You’ll have to play with it, but it’s something i would try. Resolution is a key issue here, clearly — as is any hints or color that might be there. Tonal ranges will determine which channel is best to dupe.

Hope this works a little bit. Like anything else, we can all think of a dozen things we might try — and it all depends on the original imagery.

gary in florida

"Self-meditating in Tampa, Florida USA" wrote:

On Jan 2, 11:56 am, Joel wrote:

white lightning wrote:

I am using CS2 and I’m trying to retouch stainless steel products such as fridge and kitchen items. I took the photos in ordinary lighting inside a room, no studio setup.

To bring out a stainless steel feel, I used a Pen tool to remove the background. Then I used Image > Adjustment > Desaturate to get rid of all the colors. Then I used Curve to brighten up the image and used Selective color’s Neutral mode to get rid of some of the black.

The images look ok but I’m still not fully satisfied. Am I following the right steps? or is there a better way to retouch stainless steel products?

Thanks

        Commerical?

        Well, just by reading your message I don’t think I am fully satisfied either.  Even I never photograph stainless steel product, but I think I can smell quite a bit of problem.

– Brighten – if I am not mistaken you are trying to say that the photo isn’t very good to begind with.

        a. Too much underexpose then we are looking at NOISE, and color casting
        b. In order to work with very detail photo you may need a DSLR camera.          DSLR camera alone won’t do the trick but at least few basic requirements          (1) top_of_the_line_LENS, (2) DSLR is good with low-light sitution.
          For the low-light situation I would suggest to go with Canon DSLR.  If          you decide to go with Nikon then only the current newest (around 3 times          more expensive than Canon) may do almost as good as Canon (mid range not          the top)

         Without the basic requirement then you will need lot of Photoshop work          and may not be able to get the best you really want.
– Lighting – since I am an indoor photographer so lighting is what I do    best.  Studio strobes isn’t very expensive, or usually less expensive         than top-noth flashes.  And most pro and entry level DSLR and flash allow         you to fire multiple flashes and wireless too.
        *But* if you don’t have wireless flashes, external flash etc.. then you          still can afford the TRIPOD to give you a brighter and better quality          photo.  And if you already have DSLR camera, then I would suggest to toss          away the cheapie lens but learning to take advantage of the GOOD GLASS
– Retouching – "removing background", I really don’t know how good the *bright* stainless steel look against *bright* background, *unless* you mean "replacing" the background with darker color (unless the stainless steel doesn’t have stainless steel color).

        But it seems like you forget to mention "MASKING" and "LAYER" which may be
the must have.  "Masking" there are several types of Masking, one is for removing other is for replacing, patching etc.. depending on how you use the Mask command.

– Color – Photoshop does have some problem with some color’s (channel) and especially the shinny look.

P.S.  I can’t be able to picture what you have at your end.

Another simple thing to try is checking which channel contains the most contrast. Duplicate it, and lay it on top of the others. Make that one about 50 (or less) opaque and then push the levels.
The ‘texture’ of the steel — which are really little bands (depending on the resolution) might jump up a little. You’ll have to play with it, but it’s something i would try. Resolution is a key issue here, clearly — as is any hints or color that might be there. Tonal ranges will determine which channel is best to dupe.

Hope this works a little bit. Like anything else, we can all think of a dozen things we might try — and it all depends on the original imagery.

gary in florida

I have never work with steel or stainless steel to know much about it, so I can only be able to give some general information about retouching technique. But as a professional photographer and photo retoucher, I usually go the the root of problem, so I would say.

– Good retouched starts with good original photo

– Good original photo starts with good glass (lens)

– And good lens still require good lighting to capture the best quality

And as I suggested to use tripod to be able to get around low-light situation. No, I don’t wotk with poor explosure to have much experience, or since I work for $$$$ and even I am pretty good with repairing damaged photo, but I prefer working on good photo to improve my retouching instead of wasting energy repairing.

Y’all are not professionals unless you can make the picture correct IN THE CAMERA! You clearly cannot. You are totally ignorant. It must suck be you, sitting on your ass in PS trying to make up for your total incompetence.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:20:13 -0600, John J wrote:

Y’all are not professionals unless you can make the picture correct IN THE CAMERA!

The image is never perfect in the camera, any more than you or I were correct before being born. Images, and people, always need to be developed a little before they are really interesting, and can be presented to the world.

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see some of your photographs. Then we can decide whether you are a treasured, if somewhat cantankerous artist, or not.

Or are your images still all inside the camera? – LOL
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

John J wrote:

Y’all are not professionals unless you can make the picture correct IN THE CAMERA! You clearly cannot. You are totally ignorant. It must suck be you, sitting on your ass in PS trying to make up for your total incompetence.

I don’t know what message you are responding too. But your message is saying you ain’t verty smart.

Or may be you are one of the stupid I kill-filed before and just got expired… cuz I never like stupid and I have kill-filed thousands of them.

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:20:13 -0600, John J wrote:

Y’all are not professionals unless you can make the picture correct IN THE CAMERA!

The image is never perfect in the camera, any more than you or I were correct before being born. Images, and people, always need to be developed a little before they are really interesting, and can be presented to the world.

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see some of your photographs. Then we can decide whether you are a treasured, if somewhat cantankerous artist, or not.

Or are your images still all inside the camera? – LOL

Agree! and I just kill-filed that sucker (probably once again). The only thing we can do is trying to get the best out of the camera (by using good camera, correct setting, good lens, and right lighting) then Photoshop or similar for fine-tuning or modifying depending on the work.

I have no idea what the sucker respinses too, but it shows the coward and foolist stinky mouth so I kill that sucker. I just added to existing group of "foul-mouthed" which supposes to be around 300 days, but it was made 150 days ago so the sucker will re be reborn in 150 days.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:42:43 -0600, Joel scribbled:

I have no idea what the sucker respinses too, but it shows the coward and foolist stinky mouth so I kill that sucker.

Cowards are the ones who shout (semi intelligible) insults and then hide behind their filters.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:42:43 -0600, Joel wrote:

I have no idea what the sucker respinses too, but it shows the coward and foolist stinky mouth so I kill that sucker.

I’m more interested in your thoughts about photography. The basic question is an interesting one. How much should you be able to predict the final result, in order to claim artistic credit for it?

I would also ask the same question of you that I asked of our mutual friend – do you have any images available for us to look at?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see some of your photographs. Then we can decide whether you are a treasured, if somewhat cantankerous artist, or not.

I doubt people would like my stuff. None of it is pretty. In fact, I don’t think I have one picture with a cloud in the sky.

Or are your images still all inside the camera? – LOL

Actually, I do have one film holder with 2 exposed films to develop.

Mike Russell found these unused words:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:20:13 -0600, John J wrote:

Y’all are not professionals unless you can make the picture correct IN THE CAMERA!

The image is never perfect in the camera, any more than you or I were correct before being born. Images, and people, always need to be developed a little before they are really interesting, and can be presented to the world.

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see some of your photographs. Then we can decide whether you are a treasured, if somewhat cantankerous artist, or not.

Or are your images still all inside the camera? – LOL

…. not ‘always’ … but it’s definitely the 2%, not the 98% that are ‘perfect in the camera’.

Even Ansel Adams ‘manipulated’ in the dark room, then made a copy negative of the ‘perfect’ result for reproduction.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 07:18:35 -0600, John J wrote:
….

I doubt people would like my stuff. None of it is pretty. In fact, I don’t think I have one picture with a cloud in the sky.

Regardless. It sounds like your images might be interesting. Do you have any of them on line?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 07:18:35 -0600, John J wrote:
…

I doubt people would like my stuff. None of it is pretty. In fact, I don’t think I have one picture with a cloud in the sky.

Regardless. It sounds like your images might be interesting. Do you have any of them on line?

It blows my identity, but here’s one set: http://www.digoliardi.net/ The scans suck.

I was a Chicago daily newspaper photographer, then did picture stories for magazines, things like that. No product work. Today I am exploring 8×10 view camera work.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:14:53 -0600, John J wrote:

here’s one set: http://www.digoliardi.net/
The scans suck.

I was a Chicago daily newspaper photographer, then did picture stories for magazines, things like that. No product work. Today I am exploring 8×10 view camera work.

Wonderful – my hat’s off to you. These are compelling images. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Mike Russell found these unused words:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:20:13 -0600, John J wrote:

Y’all are not professionals unless you can make the picture correct IN THE CAMERA!

The image is never perfect in the camera, any more than you or I were correct before being born. Images, and people, always need to be developed a little before they are really interesting, and can be presented to the world.

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see some of your photographs. Then we can decide whether you are a treasured, if somewhat cantankerous artist, or not.

Or are your images still all inside the camera? – LOL

… not ‘always’ … but it’s definitely the 2%, not the 98% that are ‘perfect in the camera’.

Even Ansel Adams ‘manipulated’ in the dark room, then made a copy negative of the ‘perfect’ result for reproduction.

Exactly what you really want then you are probably right, but it’s ok for print then you may not be right. Or I do slightly fine-tuning about 99-100% of my photos, but I have done quite a few printing directly from camera and they looked great too.

IOW, I sometime at family getting together I print with inkjet printer (Epson RX680) directly from camera. Or if I don’t make a quick print for family to enjoy then I may do a light exposure/contrast adjustment.

Or I never believe wasting time with poor lens, poor lighting etc. to do repairing when I can get a better quality with top-of-the-line-lens, good lighting, and setting etc.. And I don’t know who Ansel Adams is, and I don’t care what or how s/he does his technique., and I never believe in "perfect" either, or life would be boring if thing needs no more improvement.

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:42:43 -0600, Joel wrote:

I have no idea what the sucker respinses too, but it shows the coward and foolist stinky mouth so I kill that sucker.

I’m more interested in your thoughts about photography. The basic question is an interesting one. How much should you be able to predict the final result, in order to claim artistic credit for it?

I would also ask the same question of you that I asked of our mutual friend – do you have any images available for us to look at?

Well, when you get to the level you no longer need to ask to compare one thing to other then I may show you something to enjoy. In the mean time. all you need to follow the very basic enjoyments.

1. Use the best lens to capture the best quality the lens can capture.

2. Learn to take advantage of the lighting (flash) to bring light to where it’s needed.

3. Learn to know your gear well

4. Learn to develope your very own style. Or learn not to study the history of other photographer which usually won’t help you with the photography skill, or may be good for TRIVIA.

That’s pretty much all you need to know, and that is the level when you can start enjoying the work of other. Or have you ever seen me interested in the work of others? No, I sure can enjoy quite afew but I don’t care, because if it’s the same style I do then I already know, if it’s different then it may not the style I interest in.

Yup! that’s me, and if you pay close attention then you may have noticed I never correct anyone (here and other group), but I won’t shy from sharing my opinion.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:17:02 -0600, Joel wrote:

Well, when you get to the level you no longer need to ask to compare one thing to other then I may show you something to enjoy.

….
I have a feeling I’ll never reach that level. To me it’s all about the image. So "thanks but no thanks".
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Joel wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

I would also ask the same question of you that I asked of our mutual friend – do you have any images available for us to look at?

Well, when you get to the level you no longer need to ask to compare one thing to other then I may show you something to enjoy.

It is interesting that you think of comparing one photograph to another. Do you see it as a competitive thing? It need not be competitive.

1. Use the best lens to capture the best quality the lens can capture.

And what is ‘best’? MTF comparisons? Sharpness is highly over-rated. Do you know that at one time photographers sought a ‘certain something’ look (rather subjective but discernable) that was anything but sharp?

2. Learn to take advantage of the lighting (flash) to bring light to where it’s needed.

Clamp on the hammerhead flash and boom! Light ’em up!

3. Learn to know your gear well

Uh oh. Sounds like a fondling issue.

4. Learn to develope your very own style. Or learn not to study the history of other photographer which usually won’t help you with the photography skill, or may be good for TRIVIA.

Studying the history of photography or other photographers is also a way of sharing views of the world. That’s part of what photography is. I think I understand the spirit of what you are expressing, and it can be valid, but photography is not high-energy physics or Dada art. It doesn’t hurt to be informed.

Yup! that’s me, and if you pay close attention then you may have noticed I never correct anyone (here and other group), but I won’t shy from sharing my opinion.

What’s the difference?

Mike Russell wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:17:02 -0600, Joel wrote:

Well, when you get to the level you no longer need to ask to compare one thing to other then I may show you something to enjoy.

…
I have a feeling I’ll never reach that level. To me it’s all about the image. So "thanks but no thanks".

No need to feel thing needs not to feel cuz life has so many thing to learn many different levels to reach, and we can only be able to reach so much or so far.

Not even talking about photography or photo retoucher, but some very basic thing of life like we all know how to BREATH on the first second we we were out of the womb. And later in life some (a very small number of people) may have some basic training at either hospital (therapy) or gym (sport) etc., and even fewer who train to breath as Yoga, Meditation, and different types of Martial Arts.

So I hate to agree to put you down but because you are so right the way you disagree with me, so I have to agree with you even it won’t make you happy.

So, I would suggest you to learn to learn to enjoy whatever you are capable of, learn to realize that life seems very simple but it could be much more complicate then it seems, and it can be much less comples than we may think.

Yup! I even mention the breathing that most people think they have mastered without even trying, or we have been doing every seconds for the rest of our life. But if we want to reach the higher level of breathing technique then it’s a very word work and won’t be easy to master.

Have I told you I was even a martial art instructor? (I retired because I am too old and health problem), and I can even talk more detail about the nartual life (like eye blinking and reaction etc.) that most normal people don’t even think ONCE in their life time.

Joel wrote:

Have I told you I was even a martial art instructor? (I retired because I am too old and health problem), and I can even talk more detail about the nartual life (like eye blinking and reaction etc.) that most normal people don’t even think ONCE in their life time.

English is not your first language, is it? And human thinking is alien, too. Right?

I suspect you are our first genuine dog to post here.

English is not my native language, and I do not understand my first – but I don’t blather on with posing and gesturing. I’ll bet you cannot even understand the simple humor of that.

Joel,

Would you do us the honor of showing us your photographs?

Arf!

The topic itself may be of general interest, which is why I split it off from the original thread.

To what extent do each of you pre-visualize the image in the process of making the photograph (Like Weston, most studio photographers, and others), versus seeing what can be done by manipulating the image using darkroom/photoshop techniques?

The two are not mutually exclusive – one can take a photograph with a set of darkroom manipulations in mind, then change your mind after seeing the final print, and do a different set of maniuplations. Adams and Strand did both of these, and I think they would have loved the freedom digital.

Or do you compose the image, and pick the moment, and leave the darkroom work to someone else? This, I think, is typical of photographs of people outside the studio setting. Eugene Atget used this method, and his images are certainly worthy contributions to the art.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

The topic itself may be of general interest, which is why I split it off from the original thread.

To what extent do each of you pre-visualize the image in the process of making the photograph (Like Weston, most studio photographers, and others), versus seeing what can be done by manipulating the image using darkroom/photoshop techniques?

I’ve done only one studio shot in my life and I don’t think I should post the link here. However, here is one that is kinda-like a studio shot. Done outdoors with a far off-camera flash.

http://www.digoliardi.net/images/jamie.jpg

Speaking only for myself, I do what I can in the viewfinder. Until just recently I used mainly rangefinder cameras. All the technical issues – well, I know the camera, the lenses, the perspective (DOF), all that stuff so that was something like assimulated visual or kinetic knowledge – I know what I’ll get.

I know what I feel I want: a certain composition and light that works with the subject within the aesthetic that moves me (for better or worse). So I work from that visual ‘feel’, in-camera.

And sometimes it works.

The two are not mutually exclusive – one can take a photograph with a set of darkroom manipulations in mind, then change your mind after seeing the final print, and do a different set of maniuplations. Adams and Strand did both of these, and I think they would have loved the freedom digital.

For digital, yes. I’ve been doing digital (video and stills) for the day-job for years, so when I do that I consider possible manipulations. But that stuff is all for the web, and constrained by time, and the people who pay for it. They are easily satisfied.

For B&W darkroom work I dodge, burn and locally bleach when necessary, but not to the extend one could with PhotoChop. It does not fit in my personal work.

Or do you compose the image, and pick the moment, and leave the darkroom work to someone else? This, I think, is typical of photographs of people outside the studio setting. Eugene Atget used this method, and his images are certainly worthy contributions to the art.

Never, ever left the darkroom work to someone else. Maybe that’s why I have so many rolls and a couple sheets of film to process. (My darkroom is about 40F right now. Welcome to MinneSnowTa.)

As an aside, since day-one I’ve not worked with contact prints to choose a neg to print. I was taught to examine the negative with a loupe (if necessary), punch it and print it.

And you? Tell us, please.

Pico (JJS)

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:05:10 -0800, Mike Russell
wrote:

The topic itself may be of general interest, which is why I split it off from the original thread.

To what extent do each of you pre-visualize the image in the process of making the photograph (Like Weston, most studio photographers, and others), versus seeing what can be done by manipulating the image using darkroom/photoshop techniques?

The two are not mutually exclusive – one can take a photograph with a set of darkroom manipulations in mind, then change your mind after seeing the final print, and do a different set of maniuplations. Adams and Strand did both of these, and I think they would have loved the freedom digital.
Or do you compose the image, and pick the moment, and leave the darkroom work to someone else? This, I think, is typical of photographs of people outside the studio setting. Eugene Atget used this method, and his images are certainly worthy contributions to the art.

I do a lot of photography, but not studio stuff. Your question really pertains more to studio photography. In the studio, the subject is posed and the lighting is arranged. A great deal of the composition is done before the photographer touches the camera. The photographer is visualizing as he/she sets it up.

I do some of that with table-top photography, but most of what I photograph doesn’t allow me to pose the subject or arrange the lighting. I can position myself to take advantage of lighting, but that’s limited in some cases.

In landscape, architectural, candid, animal, etc, photography, post-processing comes more into play. There’s more attention to cropping, some manipulation, and the other adjustments possible in Photoshop. An uninteresting wide shot can be cropped to an interesting detail shot that wasn’t seen when the camera snapped.

Not that there’s not some of both in each. Try to get a good photograph of an osprey or a hawk or any wild animal, and you do a lot of just sitting and waiting without touching the camera until the composition arranges itself. Photograph a barn and you move around snapping off shots looking for the right composition. Photograph the barn door hinges close-up, and you arrange the lighting with a collapsible reflector.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida