Light Painting Photography

For the promotion and progression of Light Painting Art and Artist.

You are here: Home / Light Painting Photography / Light Painting and Photoshop, Your Thoughts.

Light Painting and Photoshop, Your Thoughts.

by

Photoshop

OPINIONS PLEASE!

We need to get this settled once and for all.

What are your thoughts on Photoshopping your Light Painting? Honestly who hasn’t adjusted levels or tweaked the saturation…..

I personally always feel that a “TRUE” light painting should be SOOC. I think its way better to get it right in the camera than to tweak the S@#! out of it….

HOWEVER we have all photoshopped an image even if it was just a slight crop, if you say you haven’t your LYING.

I think these rules from the National Geographic Photo Contest are a pretty good start for the guidelines of digital manipulation and Light Painting…

YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE.

A message about digital manipulation from the Executive Editor of Photography at National Geographic magazine:

Please submit photographs that are un-manipulated and real, and that capture those special moments in time. The world is already full of visual artifice, and we don’t want the National Geographic Photography Contest to add to it. We want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop.

Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs (beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness). If you have digitally added or removed anything, please don’t submit the shot. We look at every photo to see if it’s authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we’ll disqualify it. In case of the winners, we will ask for the RAW files, if available, to be submitted for review.

DODGING AND BURNING: Dodging (to brighten shadows) or burning (to darken highlights) is fine, but please don’t overdo it.

COLOR SATURATION: Just as with dodging and burning, your goal should be to make it real. Please avoid significant over- or under-saturation. A lot of photographers make the mistake of over-saturating color, making their images look cartoonish.

SOLARIZATION, MEZZOTINT, DUOTONE, ETC.: These are discouraged as being too gimmicky. There are a myriad of alteration “filters” available in digital photo software; try not to be swayed to use them. They may be cool and fun, but they won’t help you in this contest.

BLACK-AND-WHITE IMAGES: Acceptable

CROPPING: Acceptable

Comments

  1. The way I see it , as soon as you have to start defining it ” SOOC” , ” Photoshopped” , etc , you have lost sight.

    I shoot RAW , I run it thru lightroom. Big deal. It’s my creative process, might not be someone elses , but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    The newer cameras will do HDR , double exposure all in camera , but to me , they look like crap. Why would I want some engineer somewhere to decide how my images should look ? I prefer to do the process myself.

  2. I am so torn by this debate. Back in 1992/93 when I first started light painting, I remember the debate was whether or not I should crop my photos or dodge and burn them, push my film, sandwich negatives and so on. About 7 years ago when I returned to school to finish my degree, while enrolled in a color film class, I heard the same questions all over again. I turned in a self portrait project that incorporated my light painting techniques, I was drilled by a fellow student who thought himself so wise and educated on the subject of photography who wanted to break the code and figure out my secret, who said “There’s no way you did this all in the camera like we were supposed to? you ‘cheated’ and sandwiched negatives together and then probably tweaked the colors on the enlarger for the different color effects? How many different enlargers did you have to use to get this image all on one sheet?” I said “no its all on one piece of film, no sandwiching”. He then said, “well then you must have just not advanced the film and kept re-shooting on the same frame then right?” I said, “no, one shot, one frame. It’s actually quite simple if you just let me explain…”, he interrupted, “You’re lying there’s no way you could do that as one shot. I bet you used a bunch of projectors and then rephotographed the projected images to make the one image, right?” Finally I said, “Seriously dude you are nuking this, but hey thanks for all the ideas that you consider ‘cheating’ I just might try them some time. Everything you mentioned is way more complex, time consuming and quite frankly more expensive than what I do.” I then asked the instructor if I could demonstrate my process. She, having toyed with light painting herself, smiled and said “Yes, I think that’s an excellent idea! I would like to point out though that had she used projectors or didn’t advance the frame those would have been acceptable submissions because they would still be on one frame of film. The only thing that wouldn’t have been accepted for this assignment that he mentioned was sandwiching negatives.” and we all went into the darkroom where I showed everyone what I did. (I’d like to note that ever since then, varied forms of light painting projects have been added to the curriculum at that school and its awesome to see what I’ve inspired.)
    Admittedly, I was dragged kicking and screaming into the world of Digital believing that the ability to shoot endlessly onto the same media card over and over could only make photographers “lazy” in that they would no longer have to take the time to think about their composition because they weren’t limited by how many frames of film they had. I scoffed at digital all together and even more so at the idea of Photoshop. Eventually, my instructor asked me, “have you ever cropped, and dodged and or burned your images in the darkroom?” I replied “yes.” Then she said, “did you ever change the filters or the aperture on the enlarger?” I said, “of course!, aren’t we supposed to? doesn’t everybody?” Then she said, “have you ever used an 80A while shooting in tungsten, or a polarizer to bring out details in a landscape?”, I said, “sure” with a bit more skepticism about the validity of my argument. And finally she said, “have you ever had an over or underexposed piece of film but used it anyway because you liked the composition and knew you could make up for it when you printed and developed it?” Realizing where she was going with her line of questioning, I sheepishly said, “yes…” and then turned my head in shame. She then took the time to show me what Photoshop could do for a “straight-shooter”, and also mentioned that throughout the history of photography that each time a “new” format or piece of equipment came along that the avid users and masters of the previous format all pretty much thought the same thing. She exclaimed that this debate has been going on for centuries in all forms of art and will continue to go on for as long as people keep coming up with new ideas.
    My point is, perhaps we need not debate what is considered cheating and what isn’t, but simply define the parameters of a contest/ project thoroughly enough that there aren’t questions about what is allowable for that particular thing. (i’d like to mention that I don’t think the parameters in the contests here aren’t thorough enough and that if someone has questions about them i’m sure the creators would gladly go into more detail to clear up any confusion anyone submitting might have.) Instead of accusing each other of “cheating” or not being a “true” light painter we should simply ask ourselves if our techniques fit into the parameters of what we are submitting to, and whether or not WE feel we would be compromising our craft if we tweaked our own processes to fit those parameters. It would be a sad thing to me if someone felt shamed by what they do to create their images because they felt they Photo-shopped, post process “too much” or felt their work wasn’t “good enough”. I think people merely need to ask themselves if what they do fits the parameters. If their answer is no then they should consider if they feel they are capable of attempting a new piece of work that would fit, so that they could submit, or simply pass this one up.
    Being that I don’t have much patience for or mastery of Photoshop, but do use it to crop out elements of my frames that I consider undesirable and at one point played with the color spectrum when I got bored with seeing so much red, white, and blue (since my arsenal of flashlights was minimal and I only had access to those three colors at that time), I have debated in my own mind as to whether or not I was “cheating”. It seemed simpler when film was all I had to work with, but as my instructor once demonstrated, even those film images fell victim to pre, during and post production elements that some might consider “cheating”.
    So where do I stand in this debate? I stand alone with the knowledge that whatever I do to create my images is a form of art that is all mine, that with new discoveries is constantly changing, evolving, and sometimes devolving because my work is completely my prerogative. The opinions of others does’t matter because opinion’s are subjective. Having first picked up a camera to use it for artistic purposes in the ancient year of 1991 and remembering that even those short 22 years ago I was often cornered into debates that still toiled over whether or not photography itself could be considered an art form… this debate feels tedious. My former instructor managed to bend my perceptions as to what was really important by simply saying, “Do you enjoy what you are doing and are YOU happy with your results? Then stop arguing and go do it!”
    Digital manipulation exists. Defining boundaries, giving what we do a name, and fitting it neatly into a categorical box seems like a lot of wasted energy and time especially when referring to artwork which carries as broad a spectrum as there are artists who create. This is not a debate that carries 2 determinate fixed sides. The debate to define the boundaries between forms of art has always been difficult and will continue to be difficult for as long as people keep coming up with new ideas. Categorical boundaries are constantly being skewed. But isn’t that the point? To be creative and come up with new ideas? So, I could waste my time arguing about which “side” of the fence i’m on, or I could set my camera on that fence and when it gets dark enough, pull out my light arsenal, and just do what I LOVE to do!

  5. With regards to Cindy Poole’s comment, “how do we know it’s not a composite?” I say, why we do we care if it’s a composite or not?

  6. Thanks for inviting me to comment Jason. I’m currently teaching a light painting and Night photography workshop, and plan to share this post and discussion with the students this afternoon.

    I completely agree with Michael Bosanko that it should be to each his own, and I will make several points. Everyone must draw their own lines and set their own limits. To tell me that my art is illegitimate because I use photoshop or some other software? That’s ludicrous.

    First, we are talking about art, not journalism (nat geo). There are no rules in art, and you can do whatever the hell you want. Explore the possibilities and find what works for you, but don’t judge someone else because they take a different path. I have a friend who proudly tells people that he “uses absolutely no photoshop” in any of his images, but it’s really disingenuous because he fully exploits lightroom on all of his images, and now with LR5, layering files is about the only thing you can’t do in LR.

    I personally try to get the image as close to perfect as possible in camera, and spend a lot of time and many exposures working on a shot until I get it the way that I want it. I aim to do all of the lighting in one frame, and I prefer to work entirely in lightroom because I like the simplicity and elegance of maintaining a parametric workflow. That said, if I cannot achieve my goal in a single exposure, or in Lightroom alone, I have no problem doing what needs to be done to stack layers and open them in PS. I don’t try to hide it, or advertise it- there’s no point as far as I’m concerned.

    The idea of SOOC seems silly to me, although I do respect those who practice it. I suspect that most SOOC practitioners have little or no experience with film. I cannot imagine a film photographer who would insist on making straight prints with a number 2 filter and no dodging and burning or other forms of contrast control in the darkroom- so why do we hold digital photographers to that limitation?

    I get it, and more power to you if you choose to limit your expression to what can be achieved in camera, but don’t tell me that I must abide by the same standards! Why should we not use the tools at our disposal to express and idea or thought?Lightroom, photoshop photomatix, NIK silver FX are all just tools like our cameras. I use Canon, you use Nikon. I use a flashlight, somebody else uses EL wire or strobe. I use Lightroom, somebody else uses PS. It’s just art. So what? We are creating, contributing something joyful and beautiful to the world thru our efforts. Live and let live, decide for yourself what tools you will use, and just make art.

  7. I can appreciate why some folk are tired of it, but I love the SOOC argument.

    It’s one of those things that’s never going to be resolved, and nor should it be. It cuts to the core of why light painting is so appealing in a way that is (to me at least) more meaningful than the standard arguments about photo-manipulation in say, reportage photography, as at it’s heart it’s about how much artificial manipulation of reality is imposed upon an image that is already a twisting of our normal perception in a wonderfully non-conventional manner.

    I’m not of a mind to try and insist everyone ought to aspire to purist sooc, as that’s just silly. No-one has the right to tell others how they should be doing their thing. But I do ascribe to what has been previously referred to as the ‘Maltby Standard’ of sooc (after a particularly energetic discussion a few years back on the LJ discussion forum on Flickr) whereby an image is not tweaked in any way at all once it gets beyond in-camera firmware. The vast majority of my light painting is presented in this manner, but not all. I used to faff about in Pshop with wild abandon, but I found that more and more I was explaining to people that the images were photographs, with no CGI elements, and the easiest way to prove this was by reference to the EXIF data, and if the file had been through Pshop, or Camera RAW, then the EXIF fields are modified accordingly. Instead, I now prefer to be able to point people at the words ‘Camera Firmware’. Obviously there are people out there who will have sufficient competency in wrangling the 1’s and 0’s to indicate that a jpeg was recorded on a plastic daffodil with an exposure time of minus 30years, at an aperture of twelvety-zillion, with ISO of the square root of minus one. But so far, I’ve not found anyone who’s so into programming in PERL that they can be bothered to do so, and shareware EXIF editor packages all leave their own footprint on the EXIF.

    It’s easy for those of us who do the wavey-wavey of the lights to forget that there are still a large amount of people out there who have no idea what LP is, and it’s nice to be able to prove to them that the shots are actual photos. I’ve tried taking a leaf from Jeremy’s book and shooting film, but that just puts me back to where I was in the late 1980’s waiting ages to see if the shot worked, and then feeling mifffed that I can’t just move a couple off feet to the left and repeat the shot so it’s the way I wanted.

    I’ve had many a discussion with people who’ve pointed out that a little bit of tweaking in RAW conversion isn’t *really* photomanipulation, and I’m sure it would have improved some of my shots, but it’s sort of not-the-point. I post-process my non-LP shots quite extensively in some cases, and sometimes I make images entirely in Pshop, so I’d like to make it plain I have no problem with using post-proc from any ideological point of view. But if I’m being 100% honest, I do get a bit of a kick from getting to the back of the cam and seeing a shot come up looking just how I want it. Makes me feel like a clever fella it does 😉

    Long may the argument/discussion/debate continue I say. And I’m sorry if this waffle went on and on, but be glad, that’s the short version. Anyone wanting to have their ears bored off should feel free to e-mither me for the full 200-page version.

    Onwards & upwards y’all.

    Tyneside out.

  8. Ok. My thoughts on this… I brutally stick by unedited light art when it comes to personal projects. I do this because I encompass my artistic and painful outlet with the utter passion to encroach photography (digital or film) with the view that the camera is just a tool to capture the boundaries of my own personal journey into light art. I pay no attention to what is good or bad with photo manipulation; each to their own. If editing works for you, then do it with gusto. Photo manipulation takes great skill, and if that’s your bag, then go for it. I applaud you. With general photography, I bastardise my images like the next person. But with light art, it is important to me that I use light art and photography to understand the fundemental basics and advances of capturing light. In all my work, there is error. I like that. I love the fact that I make mistakes, and that anomolies happen. Light art is not a precision medium. The environment is your canvas; if you’re an artist, then be an artist. Embrace the night, grab your torches and let rip. For want of a better phrase, you are essentially painting blindfolded. When you work for clients, you must forgoe artistic license and be at the mercy of what the clients want. But ultimately, the client buys into what you can personally achieve. And that’s fair enough. But ultimately, light art is a test of oneself. I have covered pretty much every discipline there is. My personal journey remains pure not to prove a point, but to keep me in tune to what I can personally achieve using photography and light painting. Light painting is, to each of us, what we make of it. For me, it is the want of bettering myself as an artist and focusing on my own solitary journey in capturing my imagination through digital and film medium as pure as I can make it. A lot of people think I edit my images… I take that as a compliment. For every image I put out there, there are lots of images that I keep on file that no one sees, because I fuck up, I try again, in camera. Again, I am not anti-editing, but for me, my personal portfolio must be free from editing because that is my personal choice. I am a pro photographer first and foremost. I understand photography. And after a decade of light art, I understand the basics. The sensor is a canvas. The lights are my brushes. It really is as simple as that. Light art is to my understanding a broad spectrum. Do what works for you. If you are pleased with the outcome, then that is all that should matter, whether it’s manipulated or not. I have chosen my path of unedited light art. That does not make me better or worse than anyone. What matters is how you feel inside, and how happy you are with the most contemporary artistic medium of this century. What I will say to everyone is this; feel the love like I do. Embrace it. Enjoy it. Love it. Do it for yourself, and give a stiff finger to those that question your ethics. It is all about the love and want for what you do. Edit, or don’t edit. Chose your path, or both paths, and again, feel the love for what you produce x

  9. I don’t get this at all… Photoshop is a tool, use it. (tastefully) A lot of light-paintings could seriously benefit from it. I think by boldly stating the images are not photoshoped in itself suggests our lack of faith in the medium…. If you have to brutally defend the fact, then what does that say? I’m sorry to be so blunt, but honestly I’m getting really tired of this argument and I’m also really tired of reading SOC in people’s artist statements. The image should speak for itself….. let it……

  11. Miguel, I think that if someone is going to use photoshop to enhance their colors and lightpainting, how do we know the photo is not a composite? In the end, it is like Jeremy said- Let’s not detract from the magic of light painting and I feel photoshopping is detracting from the art.

  12. No one is going to care whether photos are photoshopped or not in the end. As a light painter, I can tell if a frame is photoshopped most times. Honestly, I don’t care about it anymore. If you bang out an awesome enough LP frame, it will impress regardless of understanding or post production. I just think the “SOOC” argument is beating a dead horse at this point.

    Let’s not detract from the magic of long exposure light painting photography. It will remain a unique artform for the duration regardless of the interpretation
    from the masses.

  13. When I use to light paint, I would never use photoshop except to crop the photo. After I got the Lenser I thought something was wrong with mine because the colors weren’t as vivid as some of the other people’s photos when they used a Lenser. I guess they were adjusting their colors in PS. In my opinion, light painting should not be enhanced with photoshop. If I know someone has used it, I don’t appreciate the photo as much.

  14. Intresting discussion, I usually correct white balance, crop and set my Lens correction. That’s about the only thing I do with my lightpainting shots. So I think that this is what several people do? no?

  15. I agree with the list of requirements above, although I’m not sure if I agree with the term “SOOC”, unless a full explanation of this term is provided.

    If one shoots in RAW, then once they have performed a RAW conversion and exported a JPEG or TIFF, it has been edited and is therefore no longer SOOC, and some form of creative control has been extended PAST the image-making (in camera) process.

    If one shoots in JPEG mode, they have allowed the camera’s on-board computer to make some of these creative decisions for them, with the only control applied being the menu settings used for each image.

    I believe Photoshop, as it may be applied to the light painting discipline, should simply NOT be used to create the lighting effects in an image – I don’t see a problem with general editing tasks such as color balance, levels, curves etc. but believe that, as in ALL genres of photography, these adjustments should be kept to a minimum.

  16. Totally agree with Mr. Mellinger, very well put sir. Part of the artform of light painting is being able to produce very cool effects in a photo without the addition of post production. Practicing a technique and finally getting that perfuct shot are looking for in a SOOC photo is very satisfying and for me personally part of what I love about light painting. Obviously doing some slight editing like cropping or straightening is to be expected but adding filters and the like in my opinion takes away from what is awesome about light painting. The comparison to other forms of mixed media is perfect, while you can create some great art with post production of a light painting photo it isn’t true light painting to me once it has been filtered and heavily edited.

  17. SOOC in my opinion is nonsense! When I get my RAWs after a session of light painting as a film photographer I go to the lab. My lab is Camera Raw and I make some adjustment in the same manner that would have done Henri Cartier-Bresson or any photographer. Strictly the SOOC is for Ayatollah.

    On the other hand I am for the creation of a label to protect photos which are not photo edited with photoshop.
    I don’t think these images have more value than edited images but it is a matter of honesty to the public and respect of the work of photographers! I know it’s quite difficult to create such label. Like you said Jason, these rules from the National Geographic Photo Contest are a good start for the guidelines of digital manipulation and Light Painting.

  18. Totally agree with Eric Mellinger, a light painting need to stay without edition . a little crop or contrast and nothing more.

  19. I think I smell something burning. I’m not sure it’s a topic that can be settled due to the nature of digital photography. All you are creating is a pattern of code. Uploading an image to a website requires a compatible code to be used. A camera’s jpeg rendering and raw file are both “sooc”. Since websites typically support jpegs, it is possible to upload that file right from the memory card.
    There are many different forms of photography. Just think about how different astrophotography is from portraiture. The reasons why people collect light differ greater than the tools they use to do it. Post processing needs to be used when it’s necessary, and it should be minimal to retain the qualities of the image.
    Light painting is a completely different type of photography that employs its own unique methods. It can be likened to post processing in many ways. Want to dodge something? Don’t shine a light there. Want to burn something? That’s where you shine the light. The same goes for cropping. Don’t like the neighbor’s car in the background? Set the camera in a position where the angle of view doesn’t intersect the distraction. Even saturation can be controlled by the types of light that you use.
    Why would you ever even use post processing on a light painting? It comes down to dynamic range and printing methods. In my personal opinion, it is acceptable to use PS when printing an image with the intention of replicating what you saw on the LCD screen at the spot. You will have to brighten up everything (especially blue), or you’ll end up with a dark, muddy mess. That’s just how it works.
    I know how difficult it can be to get the shot. If you didn’t get a great image to start with, modifying it just makes it worse. It doesn’t matter how much time or energy it took you to get that shot. Scrap it, and learn from it. Light painting is about manipulating light. Post processing is about manipulating code.
    NatGeo’s rules work for them, but not for lightpainting because LP is a form of art. We want to see the light as pure as possible. No cropping is accepted. Find a camera with a different format need be. A LP contest at its best would only accept a RAW file – the judges will convert to different file types need be.

  20. Yes, I agree with NatGeo’s submission policy. It should be the rule for any light painting contest. For sure, you can use Photoshop to realize any wishes of client… it’s business. But not for contest 🙂

  21. I think the ‘rules’ are a good guideline. Not always is it possible to get it ‘perfect’ sooc. I might do a slight straightening (as it was to damn dark to get it right on the spot) or other slight ajustments.
    Anyhow, the camera’s jpg rendering is also a processing of the RAW information, all I do is render it slightly different when adjusting the color balance and saturation from the RAW I shoot. Purely and technically seen only RAW is sooc…. And cameras interpretation into jpg is based on other averages than we as lightpainters usually deal with. So why should I accept Nikon’s (in my case) interpretation, and not changing it to how I want it to look?

  22. I am the most impressed by straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) light-painted photography. I typically have little appreciation for post-processed light-painting (exceptions being the likes of Hory Ma and select others who do great mixed-media). Being a light-painter myself, I can appreciate how much extra work, time and energy it takes to repeat a skill or a photograph until you consider it “correct”, and can then publish it right off the camera. Those who get it “most of the way” and then post-process until it looks “correct” lack the discipline and the skill of a true “light-painter”.

  23. Why do I agree with NatGeo’s submission policy? It is because I have spent countless hours explaining to people what light painting is and convincing them that the image they are viewing is not photoshopped. This is not about photography in general, this is about light painting. Being an art form, like watercolors, ceramics, sculpture, whatever, at the time you depart from the pure form of the artistic technique, it becomes mixed media. Nothing wrong with mixed media (hybrid of long exposure and post processing) but it just isn’t light painting in its purest form. Let’s say you have a piece of art you have created using paint, pen & ink, clay and popsicle sticks. Are you going to call that a painting? No, it’s mixed media, no matter how cool it looks, it’s not a painting. Same holds true for light painting. Once you start in with the photoshop, it may look bitchin’, but it is “mixed media.”