Are these images Photoshopped?

A very common question some people ask is – how did you get these colours? How do your images look so good? Do you Photoshop them (referring to the popular image editing program, Adobe Photoshop)? In all likelihood, they want to know if the image they see is straight out of the camera, or if it has been ‘tweaked’ to look pretty.

The most simple answer to this question is – yes. All images have been ‘Photoshopped’. Colours have been tweaked, curves and levels applied, sharpening routines performed – all in an effort to make the image look good. And generally, the reaction to this answer would be – ‘ah, that explains why I don’t get photographs as good as yours’. Or, ‘you are more of a photoshopper than a photographer’ (usually said with a sneer).

I am fine with both responses. Because both are true. AFAIK, no camera can give a photograph so wonderful that it doesn’t need post-processing. Especially when you shoot RAW. Here’s an example of a before and after shot:

RAW image, straight out of Lightroom

With ‘Auto’ settings in Lightroom applied

RAW image post-processed in Photoshop.

I could go one step further and crop the image to show something of particular interest:

So it is for your own eyes to see what looks best. Of course, someone else may perceive the final image as ‘not yet there’ and may want to apply different settings to suit his/her taste. For example, another variation of the same image could be:

So basically my point is this – Don’t look at post-processing in Photoshop as a sin or some kind of black magic. It is very much a necessity if you are serious about photography. However with the technology available in hand, imagination is the only limit to what you can do with Photoshop. You could go to the extent of adding something which was never there in the scene in the first place, to create an impact – albeit a false one. This brings in a whole new dimension to the discussion. The question then becomes – how ‘ethical’ it is to Photoshop images and substitute technique and hard work with pixel-propping. Because RAW processing is a relatively new field, people generally associate Photoshop with ‘not technically correct’ or ‘not photography, but image editing (or manipulation)’. Yea, ‘manipulate’ is a very harsh word to use, but that’s what most people imagine opening a photo in Photoshop to be. By showing the series of images above, I hope to clear some of these misconceptions.

I wouldn’t want to comment on how ethical it is to alter the reality of a scene captured by introducing or removing elements from/into the picture. And because such things are widely done (and requires talent to be done well), it is not uncommon in today’s digital age to have the credibility of an image questioned. In fact, many such digitally manipulated images would have at some time landed in your mailbox, forcing you to be suspicious of anything too good to be true. Perfect example of such a hoax would be the shark image:

Widely circulated image that created a false impact

What is important to understand is that good photography is a combination of being creative and following good techniques. Photoshop is nothing but a tool, and a part of the post-processing technique. Yes, traditional film photography was more hard work and technically complicated than modern day digital photography, but that does not mean that today’s photographs are not worthy of the effort that it takes to create them. And in case you didn’t know, film shooters used a lot of post-processing techniques as well. They didn’t have the convenience of doing it non-destructively using a computer, nor the extent of options we have today. But they pretty much used whatever tools where available back then. So processing a photograph after it is captured on film or digital is not a new practice.

Although post-processing is not only about pushing sliders,  it could be just as easy as that. More so in these times when digital cameras have become so very cheap, and anyone can chance upon an award winning capture just by randomly shooting many frames or applying preset filters in not-so-sophisticated image editing software. But the true test of a technically good photograph would be in print (when using a proper print workflow), and for that reason it is always important to adopt sound post-processing techniques. This requires in depth knowledge of what goes behind those sliders and is serious business – not just a short cut to good photographs. If you are a photographer, are you there yet? Or are you just happy with Flickr comments?