Digital photograph manipulation.

Hi All,

Im interested in learning what you good folk think about the use of software products such as Photoshop in conjunction with your Leica photography. Ive been using Adobe Photoshop LE and ive been experimenting with manipulating some of my latest photographs that I have taken with my M6 and 50mm Summicron.

Im really pleased with the result after using Photoshop however I cant bring myself to actually show the results to anyone and claim that they are my creation. Using products such as Photoshop will enhance the photo from a purely technical perspective but during the process it will also sanitise the image and therefore lose that Leica look which we all are so interested in.

What do you think? Should products such as PS be used for just touching up the image where there are kinks in the processing or do you think that it is acceptable to make major digital alterations to the image and still claim ownership of the image?

Jason Vicinanza

-- Jason Vicinanza (jcvicinanza@btinternet.com), February 23, 2001

Answers

I don't see a problem with doing major PS mods and still claiming ownership. IMO it's similar to doing heavy-duty darkroom and retouching work in the silver domain. I'd feel more comfortable pointing out the fact that it was digitally manipulated, just to salve my own conscience.

That said, the farthest I'll go is doing stuff like cloning out hydro poles and wires, masking areas for selective application of curves, fixing colour balance etc. I also hate combining images from two or more negs/slides - it may be artistically valid, but that's not why I do photography.

In terms of "ownership", I'd feel better about presenting a digital print (even a heavily manipulated one) as being all mine, than I would be about presenting a colour print made by some anonymous darkroom tech from a neg that I'd shot. In the former case, at least I've been fully responsible for all the steps leading to the final image (except processing the film, which is a purely technical exercise for me, and introduces no artistic variables into the process).

As to the question of whether digital processing obscures the "Leica look", I think it all depends on your equipment and skill, just like in a wet darkroom. I'm getting pretty decent digital results now, using Provia 100F, a Polaroid SS4000, PS6 and an Epson 870 with Tetenal glossy paper. Some of my recent prints have what I'd call a "Leica look". But poor technique at the digital stage is just as deleterious to that look as poor darkroom technique. It's taken me two years with a digital darkroom to get to the point that I'm happy (i.e. not having chemical 8x10's made any more).

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), February 23, 2001.

Well, this is a very interesting topic especially since being tired of spending big bucks for enlargements of both my Hassy and Leica photographs, I have acquired a Minolta Scan multi and an Epson 1270.

I think that when the manipulative process limits itself to a duplication of wet darkroom techniques, the basic nature of the photograph remains integral. Adding fake sunsets, moons etc. are another matter.

As to the so-called Leica-look, I sure hope that I do not have it in my photographs. I have been trying for a long time to develop the Jean-David look and hopefully, I am well on the way to achieving that goal.

BTW, on a recent trip to India, my M6 and IIIf performed flawlessly with my Voigtlaenders Ultron and Nokton. I found that I mostly used the 35mm. Its performance is truly excellent although the construction is not on a par with Leica's own. But on a performance/dollar ratio, those lenses are hard to beat.

Jean-David

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), February 23, 2001.

A film scanner, Photoshop and a high quality inkjet printer *are* my darkroom, everything I print is done this way. Photoshop allows me the kind of control I was never particularly good at in the wet lab, and much more as well.

If you like compositing and heavy manipulation, that's one thing. But I just do what I'd do in a darkroom and am happy to produce very high quality photos this way.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 23, 2001.

What would you all regard as the min res for a film scanner for 8x10 prints?

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), February 23, 2001.

oops - there is discussion on this topic in an earlier thread :-)

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), February 23, 2001.

Are you shooting Leica demos, or photographs? If Leica demos, then you've got an obligation to keep the Leica "look". If not, then it doesn't matter what camera you use, nor if you keep that look, unless it's important to you--- and that's for you to decide. I understand a number of photographers care more about the image than the equipment used to make it, believe it or not! :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 24, 2001.

I think the only way to preserve the Leica look, or any other manufacturers' looks, is to shoot only color transparencies, do hi-res drumscans and no superflous PS manipulation other than to restore color to that of the originals. Any other process will invariably change the look of any given lens.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), February 25, 2001.

Jason, I don't understand the reluctance to use Photoshop with Leica negatives. I have owned Leica's for years and for the past two regularly use Photoshop to make prints in both b&w and color. The "Leica" look that you refer to is only related, in my opinion, where certain light conditions are enhanced by the wonderful bokeh qualities of Leitz lenses. However, these are not exclusive to Leitz lenses. I have found them with Zeiss, Schneider and the "high end" Canon lenses. I am sure there are many others.

Digital will allow you to continue to enjoy your Leica. I consider the camera as a tool. I also consider the computer,scanner, photoshop to be no different than an enlarger and the darkroom. If the end product is interesting, captures one's attention and holds it, it is a creative art productf regardless if manipulated in the darkroom or the computer.

I must also add that the basic reason that I use a negative scanner, computer, Photoshop and a high resolution printer is to evaluate my prints before going into the darkroom. I use the digital prints as a "printing roadmap." It has effectively worked for me. I have also, framed digital prints and shown them in galleries. The important thing, in my opinion, is to identify them as digital just as I identify my darkroom prints as "silver."

-- Robert Bedwell (rlb@triad.rr.com), February 25, 2001.

I have used the "digital darkroom" for about the last 5 years. During that time I have seen some amazing advances made in this direction. My prints have gone through various stages just as one does in the "wet" darkroom. Currently I use an Epson photo printer (6 ink) with non-epson inks and "quality papers" from various manufactures. For B&W I use Conn Editions Piegrgraphy BW quad inks for continuous tone prints. I'm not stating that digital is better than conventional wet prints, they are diff. Photoshop is an amazing program capable of doing some wonderful things just as one can manipulate the print in the darkroom. I look forward to the fast paced digital revolution.

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 26, 2001.