Reflecting on photographic manipulation

click photo to enlarge
A recent prestigious photographic competition received much wider coverage than such events usually do because the winner was disqualified for claiming that one of his photographs was taken in a particular town when, in fact, it was taken somewhere else. What was less widely reported was that 20% of the photographs that made it through to the final round of judging were disqualified for excessive post-shot manipulation. Comparison with the RAW files was made at this stage and the judges were able to see where objects had been removed, added or moved, and where other adjustments had been made that resulted in photographs that were considerably different from the reality that the cameras initially captured.

I've said elsewhere in this blog that cameras do not faithfully reproduce what the eye sees and if that is the aim for a particular image then post-shot manipulation is frequently necessary. It's also true that the history of photography abounds with images that have been manipulated. The consensus today, is that heavy manipulation is fine as long as it is stated by the photographer, and that "traditional" manipulation - dodging, burning, global increase and decrease of contrast, vignetting etc - are acceptable. The competitors mentioned above did not follow these conventions and also ignored the competition rules forbidding the removal, moving and addition of objects.

I began my photography in the days of film and chemical processing and I find myself in agreement with the consensus. So, in this blog you won't find much "heavy" manipulation, and where it is done it will be stated. But, quite a few of my shots have the contrast selectively and globally adjusted, or vignetting applied, or saturation adjusted (more often down that up, contrary to modern tastes!) Moreover I frequently apply the digital equivalent of black and white filters and sometimes use actual polarising and neutral density filters of one kind or another. I sometimes, but not always, mention when I've made a "traditional" adjustment. Today is an occasion when I will. The photograph above has a global adjustment of contrast and a little blur applied because I liked the painterly look that it confers on the image. But then you could probably have worked that one out for yourself!

photograph and text © Tony Boughen
Camera: Nikon D5300
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 38mm (57mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f4.2
Shutter Speed: 1/60 sec
ISO:1100
Exposure Compensation: -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Thornton Abbey and Wolf Hall

click photo to enlarge
During our return journey after a trip north, over the Humber Bridge into Yorkshire, we made a detour to look at the gatehouse of Thornton Abbey. This large, fourteenth century structure, made of bricks and stone, is the most substantial and significant feature that remains from the medieval Thornton Abbey that was founded by Augustinian canons in 1139. It is in the care of English heritage. Foolishly, prior to our visit we neglected to check that it was open and we were disappointed to find we had chosen a day when it was closed.

Consequently we were unable to enter the grounds and had to content ourselves with looking from beyond the locked gates and then across fields where there was a footpath. I wasn't too concerned because the light and weather weren't particular good for architectural photography. However, it did look like the kind of day when a black and white landscape could be made to work. As I looked at the building it wasn't the religious order who built the gatehouse that came to mind. Rather, it was Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII's chief minister and fixer, the man who set in train the Dissolution of the Monasteries as a means of separating the English church  from Rome and, at the same time, filled his king's coffers with the wealth that was appropriated.

Like many people in Britain we've recently enjoyed the BBC TV adaptation of Hilary Mantell's story of Cromwell based on her books "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up The Bodies". The darkness of the tale as well as the dimness of the natural light in the indoor scenes, the latter something that annoyed quite few viewers, really appealed to me. Processing this shot, in which I increased the contrast and darkness of the scene, perhaps explains why I liked the director's approach to the indoor lighting in the TV series.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Nikon D5300
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 18mm (34mm - 27mm equiv.)
F No: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/800 sec
ISO:100
Exposure Compensation: -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Superstore gull

click photo to enlarge
Pointing my camera at the corner of a Tesco Extra superstore in Kingston upon Hull my eye was drawn to some unexpected movement. It turned out to be a juvenile herring gull perched on the dark metal frame of the glazing, an incongruous shape against the stark regularity of the architecture. What was it doing? Its repeated pecking motions at the glass suggested two possibilities. Perhaps it was trying to break through and help itself to the mounds of food piled high on the shelves within. Or, more likely, it was behaving either aggressively or amorously towards its own reflection. Whatever the reason for its presence on its perch injected a note of idiosyncrasy and contributed a point of interest for a photograph of the man-made background. Something that I've found gulls, and in fact birds in general, sometimes do.

© Tony Boughen

Camera: Nikon D5300
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 27mm (40mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/80 sec
ISO:100
Exposure Compensation: -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Trees and louvres, More London

click photo to enlarge
When photographers use the word "contrast" they usually mean a marked difference between dark and light areas in a photograph. In black and white photography this can be achieved by seeking out compositions that naturally feature areas that are white or almost so as well as very dark or black areas. Another means of increasing contrast in this type of photography is to use a red, orange or yellow filter. In wet photography, of course, it can also be introduced during enlarging and developing too by techniques such as "burning" and "dodging". Contrast in the light/dark sense of is clearly possible in colour photography too, not least by shooting against the light.

However, the word contrast can be used in a different way, to mean a clear and visible difference of character (rather than tone) between one part of the image and another. This photograph of two adjacent shrubs shows that sort of contrast, as do aspects of this shot of Southwold Pier, particularly where the name sits against the clear sky and the dark shadows of the railings overlay the concrete and wooden decking. Architects often make use of contrast (or counterpoint) particularly when they use the soft, irregular lines and textures of natural vegetation against the hard, sharp surfaces of their buildings. This photograph of the City of London Information Centre (near St Paul's cathedral) exemplifies what I mean. So too does today's photograph.

The shot shown above has little contrast in the light/dark sense, but plenty as a result of the ragged lines of the tree branches against the hard, straight lines of the  external louvre screening. The latter is used to moderate the solar gain affecting these buildings on the edge of More London. I've photographed details of these particular buildings before, but on a recent visit I stepped further back to capture the contrast that the architects had introduced into the composition.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 10.4mm (28mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f6.3
Shutter Speed: 1/640
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Tulips, contrast and shadows

click photo to enlarge

My DSLR, a Canon 5DMk2, is set to record images in the RAW format. I do this to give me the greatest flexibility when it comes to processing my photographs and to allow me a better chance of recovering from a poor exposure. My compact camera, a Panasonic Lumix LX3, despite the fact that it can record in RAW, is always set to the best quality JPEG because I take more snapshots with it. Despite that, it has produced some images that bear comparison with any done by my more capable camera (see here, here, here and here for example, or see them all here). I know that if I shot exclusively in JPEG on both cameras my shots wouldn't be enormously poorer for it, but I would find that I couldn't achieve the quality that I required from some exposures because of the restricted ability to post process this format.

In my pre-digital days I never did any post processing of colour negative or colour reversal film, though I did develop slides. I did use a range of filters on my lenses which is processing of sorts. However, with black and white I certainly experimented with chemicals, developing times, and with dodging and burning under the enlarger. I was always fond of fairly contrasty black and white images, and slides tended to have that quality anyway, so deep blacks against strong whites featured in quite a few of my prints. Nowadays I tend to favour the greater dynamic range  and more natural contrast that is possible with digital, though every now and again I like to take a left turn and produce a very contrasty image with deepened shadows.

Today's offering is a case in point. These dark red tulips grow in the shade of a crab apple tree in my garden, and I caught them on a still, cloudy evening, just as the light was starting to tail off. The unprocessed shot is reasonably well exposed with quite a good range of tones. What prompted me to increase the contrast was the dark, shadowy background in the top half of the shot. The red petals were positively glowing against this, and I thought it was an effect that I'd like to enhance across the whole frame. So, with a tweak of the Tone Curve and a few other fiddles here and there I produced this contrasty shot. I quite like it, but it may be a step too far for some

Addendum:
The sale of Instagram for $1 billion brought to my attention something that hitherto I didn't know, namely that people who take photographs on cameras increasingly apply pre-determined effects to their pictures. This has happened for many years in the world of digital photography where the result has been to make photographs look increasingly similar. Apparently that is happening with camera phones too as the mass application of the most popular effects reduces the difference between individual images. I'm not against photographic manipulation, but I do think that doing it yourself by consciously adjusting the basic parameters is more likely to retain any individuality your shot had, whereas applying a ready-made effect inevitably puts it alongside all the others that have had the same done to them.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 100mm macro
F No: f2.8
Shutter Speed: 1/160 sec
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Contrast and simplicity

click photo to enlarge
Language, thought and understanding revels in opposites. It seems that we better understand and appreciate one quality by familiarity with its opposite. Can one know true happiness without having experienced sorrow? Isn't generosity more recognizable and better appreciated if we have seen greed? Perhaps part of being human is to learn from the bad as well as the good, and to appreciate the good all the more when we know something of the bad.

In photography opposites are useful qualities on which to build images. Our photographs can emphasise darkness or light, compositions can be static or dynamic, colours can be muted or loud, and so on. I was thinking about this in connection with my image above. It shows a part of two shrubs in the garden of a couple that I know. They were deliberately planted together for the contrast between the copper and the lime green leaves. When I saw them I knew that I could use the gardeners' contrast photographically, so I selected a point where the two bushed met and took this image. Contrast and uniformity (which might have been achieved, though with less interest, by photographing one or other of the shrubs) are two more opposites that can form the basis of photographs.

Looking at the shot again I suppose it exemplifies a further quality- simplicity (whose opposite is complexity). Painters, musicians, photographers, in fact all artists, have much to say about the value of simplicity. The English fashion designer, Norman Hartnell (1901-1979) disparaged it saying, "I despise simplicity. It is the negation of all that is beautiful." The French painter, Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863) was of a similar mind suggesting that "a taste for simplicity cannot endure for long." However, Leonardo da Vinci said, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." As I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog the German architect, Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe (1886-1969) famously said "Less is more", to which the American architect, Robert Venturi (1925- ) replied, "Less is a bore". So, as far as my simple shot of contrasting leaves goes - is it "more" or "bore"?

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 39mm (78mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/50
ISO: 200
Exposure Compensation: 0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On