x in the sky

I used the channel mixer to isolate the red channel in order to achieve the dark, dramatic sky. as many of you might know, this is the same as using a red filter on a lens… or is it? I think the heart of the controversy regarding post-processing today is related to the fact that photographers can easily manipulate their photographs on a computer; some are loving the ease of use and flexibility of digital, while others view it as an illegitimate practice. accessories such as red filters and split nd filters are just two example of once essential photographic tools that have become obsolete because we can now replicate those effects in photoshop (or other editing applications). I’ve encountered many photographers who say they use photoshop to ‘correct’ or ‘enhance’ their photographs, in order to replicate what they witnessed at the time they captured the image… but I don’t always believe that. I think most photographers use this tool to give the photo a special finish, they add their own touch to the photo and convey their own bias about the scene/subject… and I think that’s how is should be. that’s how it’s been since the birth of this art. photographers have always been processing images (whether in a darkroom or in photoshop) in order to convey a particulars mood they feel about the image.

I believe the difference is that with the conventional way, the photographer had to decide how he wanted to capture the scene based on his vision of the final outcome. ansel adams’ moon over half dome is an example. adams had the rare opportunity to capture that scene and he would probably never have had that chance again, but at that moment he decided to snap on the red filter in order to bring out the drama in the sky. he envisioned the final outcome and did what was necessary to achieve it, before taking the photo.

in my case, I took this shot simply because I found the formation of the criss-crossing lines interesting, especially since they were framed by the trees. It was not until later on that night when I sat at my computer and loaded the photo into photoshop that I decided to process it this way – for whatever reason. now, that’s not to say that I couldn’t have envisioned this outcome during the time of capture, but it simply didn’t cross my mind because it was something I didn’t need to concern myself with. this means that photographs can now be carried out in more than on way. a photographer only needs to be worried about capturing the photo at the proper focus and exposure; they can leave the rest for later on (in the raw converter or photoshop) where they’ll have the flexibility to play around with settings, experiment with different styles, and decide how they would like the image to look like.

personally, I’m stuck in between the two viewpoints. my question to you is: do you think that this new technology is saving photography, or killing it? I know it’s a fairly exaggerated way of looking at it, but I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the subject. do you believe the ease of use is helping photographers achieve things they’ve never been able to do before, or is it just making us lazy?