That was the question today as a fellow photographer and I discussed the merits of photo retouching.
It came about because I had shared a proof-of-concept for a scene that's coalescing in my head. I expressed concern over how I'm going to hide some rigging in the photo, and my colleague said, "Just clone it out."
I was immediately repulsed by the idea of "just cloning it out", and this reaction surprised me, to be honest. After some thinking, I realized that I don't have a problem with post-production retouching; rather, my beef is that I don't want to do it. It's my personal preference, rather than a rejection of all retouching. (So don't start hating on me just yet!)
Currently I'm doing all my post work with Darktable, because it allows me to smoothly move from shooting to sharing with minimal middlemen. (Try saying that five times fast!) While Darktable does have a spot removal tool for minor blemishes, cloning out a C-stand is beyond the limits of its capabilities.
Darktable also strokes my OCD nature. It never actually modifies the original RAW file; it writes all its changes to a database and a sidecar file. This means that I only have one file, and the entire chain of modifications is applied each time the file is loaded. No change is ever permanent. It's an elegant solution. However, if I export the file to the Gimp to do serious retouching, I've either changed the original file, or made a duplicate. This has long-term scalability implications to my workflow, so I'd need a darn good reason to do it.
The second problem is one of flexibility. If I find solutions to problems during the shoot, before the shutter opens, then I know the problem is solved. If, on the other hand, I say, "I'll just fix that in post," I run the risk that for some reason, I won't be able to fix it in post. (For example, what if the background is too complex to allow me to clone something out?) That means a reshoot. And the idea that I might have to set up and schedule an entire shoot a second time because I didn't take five minutes to fix something on the day makes me sad.
And finally, I personally think it's more clever, in this world of high-tech, to find a low-tech solution to a problem. For example, instead of supporting something on a stand and then cloning out the stand in Photoshop, what about suspending the object using fishing line? The trick is to keep the line from showing up in the photo, but that's just another challenge to solve. In this world where we see so much retouching (and over-retouching,) I want to point to my work and say, "See that amazing thing? That's not 'shopped."
So there.
I tend to think retouching of that magnitude should be used to prevent re shoots rather then depended on to save work in the initial shoot.
ReplyDelete"Oh crap I missed X in the shoot and now I'll have to re shoot, or I could just remove it" rather then
"Oh look that's in the shot, I'll remove it later I guess"
If you carry the analogy outside of photography to say, electronics design or mechanical design, then would you build a gizmo knowingly incorrect and plan to adjust it after the fact? I agree that planning to rely on photoshopping generally leads to sloppy photography.
ReplyDeleteThere's a time and a place though. Air brushing blemishes, bra straps, etc. Read: subjects are rarely perfect. Other legitimate post production work might include HDR/LDR photgraphy, composite panoramics 3D compositing, etc.
Overall I agree with your premise though and is a good one. No absolute answer, in my humble opinion, though.