I've long been curious about whether certain "top pros", particularly those that focus primarily on landscapes, sometimes rely on others for post-processing work. I'm not talking about a little assistance with optimizing an image for print. I'm talking about heavy duty post-processing that begins with an unaltered RAW or similar file. This is something I've wondered for a number of reasons, including:
1. When reading the blogs of some of these folks (I'm not referring to any NPN members). I see a lot of talk about upcoming exhibits, awards, trips, and images, but very little about post-processing. Maybe they don't want to share secrets or their blogs are intended to appeal to potential buyers rather than other photographers, of course, but . . .
2. Some blogs are not even written directly by the photographers, but by members of their extensive "support teams." The teams that also coordinate sales, travel, workshops, and every other matter right down to backing up images (yes, I read a blog post about how a "team" handles that a while ago).
3. The books these folks produce on the technique of photography (as opposed to the glossy coffee table books) generally contain little on post-processing aside from very basic techniques like setting a black point, etc. Yet it seems that their images--and I find this particularly apparent with landscape images--often undergo heavy post-processing administered by a very skilled hand.
4. I've occasionally seen references, including here on NPN, to the availability of expert assistance with processing. On one or two occasions, I've even seen direct statements by individuals offering such services indicating that they perform such work for "top nature photographers," etc.
I have some other reasons as well, but these are among the top ones that come to mind right now.
Do any of you have knowledge or opinions on this? In particular, assuming this actually occurs, how widespread is the practice? I suppose I could dismiss my own interest in this by telling myself "who cares." I've been doing that for a while with some success. But the question still comes back to nag every once in a while.
It's probably obvious from the fact that I'm raising this topic, but from my perspective, post-processing your own images (rather than relying on others) is a key part of both the experience and art of photography. If a photographer does not do his or her own post-processing, then the final image is not their vision and, thus, not truly their artistic work. And so on . . . hopefully I'm just off base in having this suspicion.
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 11, 2011 at 4:21 PM
We get a pretty close look at it now and then, but almost exclusively in the world of commercial and studio photography.
We've contracted as photo assistants and location scouts for big "names" who do virtually none of their processing. They have large staffs including techs who do nothing else. On inquiring, I learned that the photog's time as a billable resource is just too valuable. In their shoes I would agree- does it make more sense to use your $500-$1,000/hr time to shoot more photos or sit at a computer? I don't know of a single landscape photog in that league today, but I personally know individuals who were darkroom techs for Ansel Adams and have read the works of others. How is that different, other than budget?
Our studio is beleaguered with spam emails from companies and individuals offering retouching services, obviously originating from contact with the several pro photography associations we belong to. Must be nice, and something to consider for perhaps a mid-sized studio that hasn't the time to do it themselves but can't afford a dedicated staffer. But we do it all ourselves, while "building in" a payment for post-processing time into our fee structure, kind of like a delivery company includes their gasoline expenses in the single basic fee you pay.
And some of it is built into the services offered by pro labs, for those like us that do not do their own printing. Our lab for example, asks that we do no sharpening whatsoever, and minimal color correction. They know what works best for their machines and media, and prefer to do it themselves. If we don't like the results we're free to return the prints and ask them to do it over, but that's happened once in thousands of print orders over the last half a decade.
Thanks for the response, Hank. You understood this, but just to clarify for the sake of others, my question is raised in the context of nature photography that is marketed and sold as fine art . . . not fashion or commercial photography, etc., that is produced for advertising and related purposes. I'm either naive or wrongly paranoid (or perhaps both) about what goes on at the very top end of the profession . . . "top end" meaning the folks who sell loads of prints at high prices, generate prodigous amounts of quality work, etc.
Ansel Adams and his fleet of darkroom techs certainly qualified. I don't know of anyone today among the full-time pros I know personally, but that likely reflects more about the markets than any reluctance to let someone else "do the art" for them.
The nice thing about having a tech do it, whether wet chemistry or LCD, the photog still gets to look it over and accept or reject, just like we do with our pro lab. But if the money isn't there to hire someone, it's not there. If it comes to going on another shoot that can result in more sales or staying home to process images, the choice is easy with the right income stream.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 11, 2011 at 6:51 PM
Hi Phil - I actually had a similar discussion with my husband's niece who is a professional photographer in NYC this past weekend when we met up for brunch in Maine. Many of her friends that she went to school with do such work for fashion and celebrity portrait photographers but again, with commercial purposes in mind. I have a real problem with top end nature photographers that utilize others to process their work. How can someone else process an image and convey the emotion "you" felt when you took it? They can NOT..... Exactly, there is no emotion just 100 layers of Photoshop. No exaggeration. My husband's niece said it is typical for these Photoshop processors to have 100+ layers. Not exactly fine art IMHO. BTW my husband's niece does not do this kind of processing work and actually prefers MF film for her work to get more natural skin tones.
I don't see a problem if the person doing the post-processing (and printing) is not the photographer who made the original capture. In fact, its wonderful if such a collaborative effort works out well for both parties. I do, however, feel that the creative work put in by person(s) involved in post-processing/printing should be given due credit.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on October 12, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Well, yes, Ansel certainly had darkroom techs working for him but he still controlled every detail of how his prints looked by giving specific, step-by-step, darkroom instructions so all the techs were really doing was carrying out his instructions. I don't have a problem with that. I think what Phil is talking about are the photographers that hand over their RAW files to assistants to interpret and process. I have a big problem with that. Capturing the image is only half of the creative process.
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM
As in most things it depends. The photographer who comes most quickly to my mind, Jay Maisel, isn't a nature photographer but he does none of his post-exposure processing. To my knowledge he never has. He is renowned for his "eye", his keen sense of observation and composition. If you have that ability (I confess to being an admirer of Jay's work) why does it matter that he didn't adjust the RAW file and make the print himself any more than it matters that Frank Lloyd Wright didn't actually construct the Guggenheim museum with his own two hands? If it's great, it's great.
FWIW I do almost all my own work because I can't afford to pay others to do those things and besides, I actually enjoy post exposure processing just like I used to enjoy darkroom work. At the same time I would not think badly of another photographer's images because they chose to pay someone else to do it so they could devote themselves to shooting. When you encounter a photograph that hits you between the eyes (figuratively speaking) and there is nothing to tell you who did the post processing, do you really need to know that before you can acknowledge that it is a great photo? If it's not a great photo, the best processing and printing job in the world won't make it great.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on October 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM
"why does it matter that he didn't adjust the RAW file and make the print himself any more than it matters that Frank Lloyd Wright didn't actually construct the Guggenheim museum with his own two hands?"
Because Wright, as all architects do, didn't just hand over a sketch of his design and leave it to the workers to figure out how to build it. He provided detailed designs and engineering instructions to take his vision from paper to reality.
"When you encounter a photograph that hits you between the eyes (figuratively speaking) and there is nothing to tell you who did the post processing, do you really need to know that before you can acknowledge that it is a great photo?"
No, I agree the image stands on its own; but if the photographer didn't participate in post processing by at least providing instructions for the finished print, he/she shouldn't take all of the credit for the creation of that photo. Anyone who's ever seen the original negative of an Ansel, Edward Weston, etc. image and compared it to the finished print realizes how much creative work goes into taking the negative/RAW file from the camera to the finished print. You can barely see the moon on negative of "Moonrise Over Hernandez" and the contrast is flat. If Ansel had left the post-processing to a lab tech to just print it, it would be a very boring image.
Are there any great landscape images that didn't require some post-processing adjustments whether of a negative in the darkroom or a RAW file on the computer? I would guess probably not and it's the responsibility of the photographer who takes credit for the image to also take responsibility for all decisions that take the image from camera to finished print.
It's not as though Jay or commercial photogs hand off the RAW files and never see the finished product. "Draft" come across their desk, and they have final say on what goes out the door. Same as Adams, same as an architect.
You'd be amazed what magazine editors do to photos, even much-vaunted nature mags. They point a tech at YOUR submitted work with instructions to change it as they see fit. I guess in keeping with the theme of this thread, you should refuse to allow magazine editors or their staff to make any changes to your work. Good luck and happy anonymity!!!
It seems the responses so far (for which I'm very appreciative) hit on a number of different but related issues. Eva's response probably comes closest to answering my principal question, which focused on whether the use of photoshop experts is common for very busy landscape photographers who are fortunate enough to have attained a high degree of commercial success. As I've thought about it more since posting this topic, perhaps in some sense the question didn't even need to be asked . . . any photographer with his or her own stores, TV shows, or similar degree of visibility is going to want the post-processing of their work to be world class.
Perhaps it comes down to a matter of context and degree, as I think Barry is saying. If "contracting out" for editing occurs in a manner that leaves most of the post-processing (and hence, a substantial part of the creative process) to individuals other than the photographer, to me that can be a problem. If instead it's done for the simple purpose of polishing and finalize an image for printing and display in a manner directed by the photographer, that's something else and far less of an issue from my perspective. There may be some images, of course, which only require minimial post-processing . . . I don't have a major issue with handing that off to a third party.
What's bothering me, I suppose (rightly or wrongly), is a suspicion that contracting out for heavy editing is commonplace among the upper echelon of commercially successful nature photographers. It would certainly bother me less if (as Anil suggested) the post-processing team is given due credit for their involvement, but I've not seen that happen and don't expect to see it happen in the future. It would also bother me less if I didn't see some of the folks that I believe contract out for post-processing are entering their images in prestigious contests and, in some cases, doing quite well. Commercial success by itself is not an issue for me . . . it's the lack of transparancy regarding the photographer's role in the post-capture part of the creative process that is on my mind.
For me, if you want to be considered an artist and want your work to be "fine art," you've simply got to perform all the vital steps of the creative process yourself. When that doesn't occur, the resulting image is not fine art in my opinion and shouldn't be marketed, sold, or (most importantly) recognized as such. But there seems to be very little awareness or recognition of the "handoff"--or at least, the handoff that I suspect is occurring--to post-processing experts in the first place.
If I'm wrong about this being a practice, that's fine by me. I can live with looking a bit foolish for raising the issue.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on October 12, 2011 at 3:12 PM
I agree with you completely Phil. I think this problem is more pronounced tpday than ever before due both to digital processing programs and the subsequent rise in digital printing businesses making it much easier to contract out the processing/printing, and to the proliferation of selling "fine art" images on the internet.
In galleries today an image printed by Edward Weston, Ansel, Harry Callahan, Brett Weston etc., etc. is worth more than the exact same image printed by an assistant. The fact that one print is the hands-on work of the artist makes it more valuable and that's how it should be. I have no problem that these and other successful photographers use darkroom assistants but they disclose if the photographer did not make the actual print and it's priced accordingly.
Discussion
12 replies1. When reading the blogs of some of these folks (I'm not referring to any NPN members). I see a lot of talk about upcoming exhibits, awards, trips, and images, but very little about post-processing. Maybe they don't want to share secrets or their blogs are intended to appeal to potential buyers rather than other photographers, of course, but . . .
2. Some blogs are not even written directly by the photographers, but by members of their extensive "support teams." The teams that also coordinate sales, travel, workshops, and every other matter right down to backing up images (yes, I read a blog post about how a "team" handles that a while ago).
3. The books these folks produce on the technique of photography (as opposed to the glossy coffee table books) generally contain little on post-processing aside from very basic techniques like setting a black point, etc. Yet it seems that their images--and I find this particularly apparent with landscape images--often undergo heavy post-processing administered by a very skilled hand.
4. I've occasionally seen references, including here on NPN, to the availability of expert assistance with processing. On one or two occasions, I've even seen direct statements by individuals offering such services indicating that they perform such work for "top nature photographers," etc.
I have some other reasons as well, but these are among the top ones that come to mind right now.
Do any of you have knowledge or opinions on this? In particular, assuming this actually occurs, how widespread is the practice? I suppose I could dismiss my own interest in this by telling myself "who cares." I've been doing that for a while with some success. But the question still comes back to nag every once in a while.
It's probably obvious from the fact that I'm raising this topic, but from my perspective, post-processing your own images (rather than relying on others) is a key part of both the experience and art of photography. If a photographer does not do his or her own post-processing, then the final image is not their vision and, thus, not truly their artistic work. And so on . . . hopefully I'm just off base in having this suspicion.
We've contracted as photo assistants and location scouts for big "names" who do virtually none of their processing. They have large staffs including techs who do nothing else. On inquiring, I learned that the photog's time as a billable resource is just too valuable. In their shoes I would agree- does it make more sense to use your $500-$1,000/hr time to shoot more photos or sit at a computer? I don't know of a single landscape photog in that league today, but I personally know individuals who were darkroom techs for Ansel Adams and have read the works of others. How is that different, other than budget?
Our studio is beleaguered with spam emails from companies and individuals offering retouching services, obviously originating from contact with the several pro photography associations we belong to. Must be nice, and something to consider for perhaps a mid-sized studio that hasn't the time to do it themselves but can't afford a dedicated staffer. But we do it all ourselves, while "building in" a payment for post-processing time into our fee structure, kind of like a delivery company includes their gasoline expenses in the single basic fee you pay.
And some of it is built into the services offered by pro labs, for those like us that do not do their own printing. Our lab for example, asks that we do no sharpening whatsoever, and minimal color correction. They know what works best for their machines and media, and prefer to do it themselves. If we don't like the results we're free to return the prints and ask them to do it over, but that's happened once in thousands of print orders over the last half a decade.
The nice thing about having a tech do it, whether wet chemistry or LCD, the photog still gets to look it over and accept or reject, just like we do with our pro lab. But if the money isn't there to hire someone, it's not there. If it comes to going on another shoot that can result in more sales or staying home to process images, the choice is easy with the right income stream.
FWIW I do almost all my own work because I can't afford to pay others to do those things and besides, I actually enjoy post exposure processing just like I used to enjoy darkroom work. At the same time I would not think badly of another photographer's images because they chose to pay someone else to do it so they could devote themselves to shooting. When you encounter a photograph that hits you between the eyes (figuratively speaking) and there is nothing to tell you who did the post processing, do you really need to know that before you can acknowledge that it is a great photo? If it's not a great photo, the best processing and printing job in the world won't make it great.
Because Wright, as all architects do, didn't just hand over a sketch of his design and leave it to the workers to figure out how to build it. He provided detailed designs and engineering instructions to take his vision from paper to reality.
"When you encounter a photograph that hits you between the eyes (figuratively speaking) and there is nothing to tell you who did the post processing, do you really need to know that before you can acknowledge that it is a great photo?"
No, I agree the image stands on its own; but if the photographer didn't participate in post processing by at least providing instructions for the finished print, he/she shouldn't take all of the credit for the creation of that photo. Anyone who's ever seen the original negative of an Ansel, Edward Weston, etc. image and compared it to the finished print realizes how much creative work goes into taking the negative/RAW file from the camera to the finished print. You can barely see the moon on negative of "Moonrise Over Hernandez" and the contrast is flat. If Ansel had left the post-processing to a lab tech to just print it, it would be a very boring image.
Are there any great landscape images that didn't require some post-processing adjustments whether of a negative in the darkroom or a RAW file on the computer? I would guess probably not and it's the responsibility of the photographer who takes credit for the image to also take responsibility for all decisions that take the image from camera to finished print.
You'd be amazed what magazine editors do to photos, even much-vaunted nature mags. They point a tech at YOUR submitted work with instructions to change it as they see fit. I guess in keeping with the theme of this thread, you should refuse to allow magazine editors or their staff to make any changes to your work. Good luck and happy anonymity!!!
Perhaps it comes down to a matter of context and degree, as I think Barry is saying. If "contracting out" for editing occurs in a manner that leaves most of the post-processing (and hence, a substantial part of the creative process) to individuals other than the photographer, to me that can be a problem. If instead it's done for the simple purpose of polishing and finalize an image for printing and display in a manner directed by the photographer, that's something else and far less of an issue from my perspective. There may be some images, of course, which only require minimial post-processing . . . I don't have a major issue with handing that off to a third party.
What's bothering me, I suppose (rightly or wrongly), is a suspicion that contracting out for heavy editing is commonplace among the upper echelon of commercially successful nature photographers. It would certainly bother me less if (as Anil suggested) the post-processing team is given due credit for their involvement, but I've not seen that happen and don't expect to see it happen in the future. It would also bother me less if I didn't see some of the folks that I believe contract out for post-processing are entering their images in prestigious contests and, in some cases, doing quite well. Commercial success by itself is not an issue for me . . . it's the lack of transparancy regarding the photographer's role in the post-capture part of the creative process that is on my mind.
For me, if you want to be considered an artist and want your work to be "fine art," you've simply got to perform all the vital steps of the creative process yourself. When that doesn't occur, the resulting image is not fine art in my opinion and shouldn't be marketed, sold, or (most importantly) recognized as such. But there seems to be very little awareness or recognition of the "handoff"--or at least, the handoff that I suspect is occurring--to post-processing experts in the first place.
If I'm wrong about this being a practice, that's fine by me. I can live with looking a bit foolish for raising the issue.
In galleries today an image printed by Edward Weston, Ansel, Harry Callahan, Brett Weston etc., etc. is worth more than the exact same image printed by an assistant. The fact that one print is the hands-on work of the artist makes it more valuable and that's how it should be. I have no problem that these and other successful photographers use darkroom assistants but they disclose if the photographer did not make the actual print and it's priced accordingly.