No doubt most of you have heard it before and in all likelihood will hear it again, “Yeah, that’s a great shot, but you ‘Photoshopped’ the image to make it look like that”. In most cases, when ‘Photoshopped’ is used as a verb, the implicit accusation is that something unfair, devious or amiss is at play. These unsolicited accusations from the uninformed observer create a delicate situation. Acknowledging that you used image processing software in their mind only confirms their erroneous perception, but to deny the use of it is rarely accurate either. What they fail to understand is the difference between the JPEG files that their Point & Shoot camera records, and the RAW files captured by the vast majority of professional photographers today.
JPEG files were named after the committee that created them in the mid 1980’s, known as the ‘Joint Photographic Experts Group’ (JPEG). This group was given the task of creating standardized image coding that would allow photo quality graphics to be displayed on computer text terminals. When an image is captured in a JPEG file format the settings selected by the user on the camera (and/or those that the camera has selected in one of the ‘auto modes’) are in a sense processed and rendered, but defined by the restricted number of colors of an RGB color space. This color space is greatly limited when compared to the full spectrum of colors seen by the naked eye. With a RAW file there is minimal processing in camera. The camera simply stores the data allowing the photographer to process the image at a later time. This allows the photographers of today the same ability to develop their digital files as was possible when working with film negatives, but with even greater and more dynamic control as RAW is in a digital format. One could in essence think of RAW as the digital negative and JEPG’s as the print or ‘finished product’. The only way to process the information captured when shooting images in RAW is to use image processing software such as Lightroom or Photoshop. Just because a photographer’s work stands out as spectacular certainly doesn’t mean that there is trickery being employed or that images are being altered with software. In understanding digital photography, one realizes that there is no camera or equipment that is capable of duplicating the myriad of colors, tones, hues and detail that the human eye can see. A photographer goes through all the post process work to bring out in their digital image files the elements that they saw when they clicked the shutter, elements that the camera cannot record. Granted, some photographers go way overboard in their post processing work, overusing color saturation and creating an image that does not accurately reflect the original scene. Sometimes this may be done as an artistic rendering of a shot they captured, however I’m pretty sure we’ve all seen an image before and thought to ourselves that the color intensity looked as though a bag of skittles and a box of popsicles had a baby! As a photographer I view it as my personal responsibility to process my RAW files as close as I can to represent what the scene looked like at the time I captured the image. Often the most beautiful spectrum of colors is able to be seen during the ‘The Golden Hour’. Sometimes when we see images with spectacular soft light and colors this was achieved by capturing the image in the proper lighting conditions. At the end of the day the decision is quite simple really, do you want a machine (the camera) responsible for rendering the scene as it was, or the photographer who was there and captured the image? This is typically (but not always) achieved by the photographer getting to their location before the sun comes up (or sets) or even sleeping at the shooting location the night before, both of which require a lot of work and planning. The next time someone criticizes your hard earned image by telling you it was faked with processing software, smile and remind yourself that unfortunately they’ve probably never been awake to witness that kind of light before.
Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.
– Nathaniel Smalley
12 Comments
I couldn’t agree more with this post. It is usually the ignorant (or jealous) person that will stoop to the “It’s just Photoshopped” comment when seeing an amazing image. They have no clue the “amazing” (as in degree of effort) work needed to produce such an “amazing” image. Thanks for the post!
You are most welcome Mac, I’m glad you enjoyed the content.
Nice explanation of JPEG and RAW and I agree with your image processing principle. I do enhance color beyond the norm sometimes, I trust my judgement sufficiently to think that if it pleases me then some other people might like it. Of course we can´t please all of the people all of the time ..etc.
Thanks Steve, and you are correct, one certainly can’t please everyone all of the time…
I was glad to see you address this issue. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this, and it’s usually other people’s work I’m defending. I wonder why people think it was acceptable for the “Masters” of film to do a great deal of correcting in the dark room but see it as a problem when things are corrected on a computer. I believe in doing as little post processing as possible, because that is simply my philosophy; however, a professional photographer owes it to their clients to make their work the best, and some is always required. There is also the occasion, when you have to salvage a photo and simply must process more than usual. In addition, I always wonder what people think being a pro photographer means – for me, it’s the ability to capture colors and light in-camera, and over the years I’ve learned how to do it well. If the person criticizing doesn’t know this is possible, then they really don’t understand photography at all.
Thanks for your thoughts Shannon, you make some great points.
Could not have said it better myself. If I am asked this question, I usually ask for an explanation of “Photoshopped”. Usually this is unanswerable as the individual making the statement generally has limited experience and in most cases has never heard of “Raw”, which then leads to a condensed response of what you have here. They don’t always get it, but at least I have the opportunity to put them right!
That’s a great way of handling the situation Jacqueline.
Everyone has his or her idea of beauty. What I see or you see can be totally different from what attract others to an image. That to me is what makes photography a passion and art. I am not one to criticize anyone’s work and without image editing software, to me, it would be a pretty dull world.
Thanks for sharing your views on Raw. I appreciate that!
Your work is awesome!
Thanks so much Thomas, I agree… I wouldn’t want to shoot in any other format than RAW.
Well, I don’t mind if they say is photoshoped. I’m an artist first and I use the camera as a medium for create ART. But, lets think for a moment that I don’t use photoshop, but I had to use a bunch of expensive filters to help the camera to get the image my eyes are seeing, but my lens can’t. Lets say that I had to use HDR techniques to be able to show the whole range of colors and tones. Is it Ansell Adams guilty for enhance the dodge and burn techniques ? Did I used PhotoShop? I don’t care as long as I produce what my eyes saw.
I agree Hector, that is the goal in all of this afterall.