Friday 2 August 2013

Software temptations

Digital photography offers so much flexibility in processing, so easily, that there is a temptation to make every image 'perfect'. For all flaws to be ironed out. Some flaws, like colour fringing on edges, need to be corrected. Lens distortion is another matter.

There's no point using a fisheye lens and correcting the distortion. That's simply using the wrong lens in the first place. Fisheye distortion is the reason to use such a lens. With ultrawide lenses the matter is more moot.

These lenses introduce distortion by their very nature, but they still give a fairly natural look - certainly in the centre of the frame. If there's a horizon line which has become curved then by all means straighten it out. I can live with converging verticals as they are how we see, if not perceive, things. Trees and other natural forms at the edges can bear stretching. People, however, look deformed!

One problem is that by using software to 'correct' these distortions the image is cropped. Which begs the question whether the correct lens was used. If the image has to be cropped then a longer focal length could have been used.

Another problem I have with this approach is that the composition is altered. In a similar way to someone like Winogrand tilting the camera to put all the elements in the places within the frame he wants them, so I arrange the composition as I see it through the viewfinder. The cropped image then doesn't fit with how I saw the picture.

In the original picture here there is a sense of space and a dynamic to the picture, and the curves of the drums at the right are a feature.

By first correcting the distortion and then the converging verticals Ray looks normal, but the overall effect is altered. Space is compressed for one thing. The picture might as well have been shot with a shorter lens.If nobody ever sees the 'before' picture I guess none of this matters.

Looking at the Bingo book I got to thinking more about black and white conversions, and black and white in general. There's no doubt that colour can be distracting in portraits, in pictures which rely heavily on their graphic qualities and when there are lots of colours creating a jumble for the eye.

Then again colour can be an important aspect which makes a picture work. It can also help in the reading of a picture by describing what an object or surface is.

I'm also minded of the element of truth colour brings to a picture. Paradoxically it's omission can bring the same. And while black and white is almost intrinsically nostalgic it can also be timeless and universal. The biggest difficulty I have with black and white conversion is the way it can immediately make pictures look 'serious', making it more difficult to judge a picture's merits.

Another problem I have with well done black and white conversions is that the processing can be seductive. The quality of the tones can overwhelm appreciation of the picture which was the reaction I had when I looked through Salgado's Genesis book.


I'm mulling over this colour dilemma  after considering converting all my tackle shop pictures to black and white. They could make a strong set done that way. But there are a few which rely on colour to work. My biggest fear is that the notion is spurred simply by the apparent convention of dealing with such subjects in black and white. Just like the Bingo book. Good job I have a project under way which has to be shot in colour.

No comments: