February 19^th 2010 marks the 20^th Anniversary of Adobe Photoshop® and Adobe is getting together with the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) to celebrate the anniversary of the software that changed the face of photography and design forever.

The Photoshop 20^th anniversary celebration on February 18^th at 7:30 p.m. pst will be streamed LIVE and feature Photoshop luminaries including NAPP’s Scott Kelby, John Loiacono, Adobe Senior Vice President and General Manager, Creative Solutions Business Unit, NAPP Photoshop gurus Dave Cross and Matt Kloskowski, Adobe Photoshop star Russell Brown, and other key members of the Adobe Photoshop team. This fun-filled night will feature a walk through Photoshop history, a glimpse into the future, and celebrates all things Photoshop.

It’s easy to attend! Sign up at http://www.photoshopuser.com/photoshop20th, and come back to that page on February 18^th at 7:30 p.m. pst for an amazing history-making night.

For starters, I feel that I need to qualify this review with a little bit of my history with Apple Computers and Aperture software. I bought my first Mac over 20 years ago and have been using them exclusively as my publishing platform since. My standard saying is, “You can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.” I purchased Aperture 1 on the day that it was available and haven’t used it since Adobe released Lightroom, I found that Lightroom was better integrated with Photoshop for the way that I worked on my images. I know that the issues I had with the first version of Aperture have since been resolved from reading other people’s reviews; so with the release of Aperture 3, I felt a strong urge to give my “until death do us part” hardware company another shot with their software. I have spent a total of about 8 hours working in Aperture 3 prior to creating this review. I loaded it into a 2 year old Mac Pro, with OS 10.5.8, 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors, and 8 GBs of ram.

I also want you to have a brief overview of my current workflow. All of my initial editing, renaming, cataloging, and keywording is currently accomplished using Photo Mechanic by Camera Bits, Inc. I can tell you that this will never change. Photo Mechanic is super fast, super responsive, and super easy to get those images organized to a point where I can work on them further. Once I am finished in Photo Mechanic the images are imported into Lightroom. This is where I apply global and some local adjustments prior to finishing the images in Photoshop. All of the Photoshop images are stacked with the original raws and assigned a rating, color code and flag per the way my wacked out brain works. At this point, they are ready to send out for usages, added to the web, or uploaded to my Photoshelter account.

I had a bunch of tasks in mind once I downloaded my trial version of Aperture 3, yesterday. I have a set workflow in place, so my main concern is how easy it would be to integrate Aperture into that workflow. Next, I wanted to review all of the new features and adjustment tools. Then, I wanted to see what I could produce with some of my current images and how fast I could do it.

I opened Aperture for the first time in a bunch of years last night after dinner. I watched all of the videos that pop up as you start the software for the first time and then was off to the races. I decided to only import two folders from my terabyte of images that reside on my computer. I figured if I couldn’t get a good idea as to how this software would work with creating only two projects on the platform, I could stop right there and continue on with my current workflow. I chose two folders of images that I captured in Yellowstone this past summer, both of which contained untouched raws, HDR merges, and final Photoshop selects. With this first stage, I discovered my first problem. Aperture does not read any of my Lightroom ratings, color coding or stacks. It does organize the files so I can see them in the order in which they reside in Lightroom, but all of that important info attached to the photos falls by the waste-side. There might be a way to do this and have it work, I just don’t know it yet. Also, I discovered that Aperture drops all of my IPTC contact info from my Photoshop finals. And yes, this info is present when viewing the images in Photoshop and Lightroom. Everything else appears to be correct – filenames, keywords, and IPTC data on the original raws.

Next up were the features. I have to say that I am pretty amazed here. The browser is super fast even while you are uploading, something that Lightroom lacks. I managed to find my first bug fairly quickly. I went right into the adjustments tab once the import was complete, selected an image, chose the retouch adjustment, and proceeded to clone dust out of an image. I have to say that I usually do this in Photoshop, because even Lightroom is way too slow with its version of this tool. Aperture proceeded to crash 5 times in a row. So it looks like I will either need to slow down on the way I clone and become more patient, or continue to work this process in Photoshop.

Now I wanted to master an image and see if I could get similar results here in Aperture to what is available to me in Lightroom. This is where Apple left me drooling. I have to say that they are crushing Lightroom in their ability to apply local adjustments to an image. You can see what I was able to get out of my raw in just a couple of minutes using only Aperture 3. The adjustments tab contains over 20 adjustments, and 30 presets, and this is the kicker – they can all be applied locally, with a custom brush that you create. In addition, you can create presets for both individual adjustments or a series of them. The adjustments do apply super fast, although there was some glitchyness as the hardware applied it to the raw. Sometimes it only displayed part of the image during it’s redraw process, this was fixed by just clicking on the image again. Not a big problem, but it definitely contributes to frustration. I also tried clicking one of my existing .psd files to see if I could go back into Photoshop and make additional adjustments to a final select. This was not a problem, however, Aperture needed to create an additional psd of the existing psd to do so. Meaning it was treating my final Photoshop file as a raw. All of the adjustment layers were present and workable. My main wish here is that it would read my psd as the psd and open it directly, and then re-save it as the original.

With the discovery of how amazing the adjustments tab is I decided to see if I could match an image in Aperture with one that has been processed through my current Photoshop workflow. And to my amazement it actually exceeded the current Photoshop image, by holding more detail in the highlights, and giving me a very close rendition (as seen below) without using anything but Aperture. This could make it a more powerful editing tool for me, bringing images into Photoshop only for merges and panoramic creation.

So what else do I like? The GEO tagging feature is a really cool option. I do not GEO tag my photos in the field, but with a quick click of the “places” tool in the upper right hand corner of Aperture, I was able to tag all of my Yellowstone photo locations in a couple of minutes by dropping pins on the map exactly where I know I stood. Then I was able to easily attach the specific photos to those locations. Way cool. The slideshow feature is really impressive too. It gives you the power to pretty much create a movie with your images, add music, add video that you have with your D-SLR, sync those images to the music, and then export the whole show directly to youTube, Quicktime, or even as full resolution HD. Having the ability to upload directly to Flickr and Facebook is a welcome plus for me also.

I know that I haven’t even touched the surface of this software and upon more review could find even more likes and dislikes with it. My main objective here was to see if it will do a better job for me personally. Anything that speeds up my editing processes, contributes to my bottom line and that is an ever growing necessity in this industry.

Am I going to make the switch back? Well that’s not an easy question to answer. Losing my ratings, stacks, and color coding would make my life a little harder. I will have to decide how important it is for me to keep those settings, and if the answer is yes, then making the commitment to update all of the folders and images accordingly. However, the adjustment tools are calling me like the Sirens of the Odyssey. I think before I jump off of the boat half cocked, I am going to do a little more research and see what Adobe steps up to the plate with in Lightroom 3. Never-the-less, if I was a current Aperture user, I would already have the upgrade. And as it stands right now, I really want to make the leap.

Pros:

-great image adjustments – especially on the local adjustment level

-slide show and places

-uploading to Facebook, MobileMe, and Flickr – it would be even cooler if they added posting to Twitter and personal blog galleries similar to what Photoshelter offers.

-speed when browsing and adjusting

Cons:

-doesn’t read Lightroom’s ratings, color coding, and stacks

-duplicates current .psd files as if they were raws

-crashes and glitchy redraws with certain tools in certain situations

-loses IPTC contact info with existing .psd files

Darwin Wiggett and I have started a column swap in our blogs. Every other month we are writing our individual opinions on a common topic. Soon we will have a name for what we are doing, but for now, this month’s topic was “Photoshop and Nature Photography: How Far is Too Far?

You can view Samantha Chrysanthou and Darwin Wiggett’s post on my site by clicking here.

And you can view my post on Darwin’s site by clicking here.

Our next posting will be at the beginning of October, so mark your calendars. That will be the third take on this idea and by then we should know what to call it. In the meantime, read both posts and give us your feedback, we would love to hear what you think.

Please also visit Samantha’s website and Darwin’s website they are both extremely talented photographers.

Photoshop and Nature Photography: How Far is Too Far?

by Samantha Chrysanthou and Darwin Wiggett

Samantha’s website | Samantha’s blog
Darwin’s Website | Darwin’s blog

In the popular view, photography is more realistic than any other graphic art because the camera takes its images directly, optically from reality….However, all art is illusion…and a photograph as much as a painting is a two-dimensional exercise in triggering perceptual responses, not a two-dimensional version of the real world.

–Michael Freeman, The Photographer’s Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos

The nature photography world is locked in an unwinnable and pointless debate: how far should you process your nature images before you stray from photography into art? This debate can be seen as a continuum, with those photographers who inherently distrust digital photography altogether (preferring the ‘purity’ of film) occupying one end of the spectrum; let’s call them the Purists. These people shun altering the content or look of a photograph after depressing the shutter (although filters and reflectors may be used in the field) and believe that any processing that does occur is acceptable only so far as it helps to faithfully reproduce what the photographer actually saw in the field at time of capture.

On the other end of the spectrum are the digital manipulators. These types spend as much time (if not more) working an image at their computer as in the field taking pictures. These photographers employ cloning, processing affects, HDR, and the creation of composite images regularly to freely alter the content and look of their images. Let’s call them the Processors.

The Purists and the Processors have been engaged in a battle that has heated up to the temperature of molten metal since the advent of digital cameras. The Purists accuse the Processors of lying with their wacky creations, and the Processors accuse the Purists of hypocrisy. (A similar debate about how the camera should be used occurred when colour images became possible. Ho hum, plus ça change…) While most photographers would situate themselves somewhere more in the middle of the continuum, enough people exist at each pole to drive plenty of photo forum discussions and blog topics across the whole of cyberspace.

But this entire debate rests on a flawed assumption.

What the Purists and the Processors are arguing about is how much a photograph is or is not reality. But as Michael Freeman points out, all graphic art is an illusion. Graphic art includes paintings, drawings, writing—and photography. No two-dimensional medium is capable of reproducing our three-dimensional world; all attempts are necessarily a representation or interpretation of what is real.

How did this debate even originate within nature photography? Part of the answer lies in the nature of the camera as an artistic tool itself. The camera is designed to record and present visual information derived “directly, optically” from reality. It works in real time, with real objects. Because of how well the camera records and reproduces visual information, it came to be associated over time with communication of visual information to large amounts of people. Thus, at some point, the camera became less associated with artistic expression and more with communication of information. Information (as opposed to opinion) is often seen as objective and neutral; the origin of the camera as a purveyor of fact (reality) is born.

This association clearly continues today. In the September 2009 issue of Photolife magazine, we read the words of renowned aerial photographer and filmmaker Yann Arthus-Bertrand on his work:

I am an extremely dedicated photographer: a beautiful photograph that means nothing is of no interest to me. For me, photography is not an end in itself but a means for transmitting a message, for bearing witness, and for moving things forward. I feel more like a journalist than an artist because I attempt to bring knowledge through my photographs.

The camera has become conflated with the communication of information rather than a platform for artistic expression for its own sake. But this association has not served the photo community well.

Let’s imagine two photographers standing side-by-side by a mountain lake. Both compose and snap a photograph of the scene before them. Will their images be the same portrayal of reality? Obviously not as even superficially they weren’t standing in the same exact spot. But beyond that give-away, their images are likely to be different in other respects too. One may choose to frame more of the lake and less of the mountain; the other may select a long lens and focus on the mountain’s peak; one may use a consumer camera while the other has a professional camera body. How each photographer makes the image is the first way in which a photograph becomes an illusion of reality. Not only does the equipment used have an impact on the final result recorded, but what each photographer chooses to include—and by extension, exclude— determines what image is rendered. The photographer uses a combination of sensory perception, emotion and conscious or unconscious thought to constrain the real scene in front of him into a two-dimensional illustration.

The second way in which a photograph becomes an illusion of reality is when it comes time to turn the data captured by the camera (whether on film or sensor) into a mode capable of being viewed by people. This is where the Purists really get their knickers in a knot. Although many Purists are happy to step into a scene, pick up a stick and throw it away, they will frown on those lazy Processors who decide to just clone out the stick in post-processing. We agree that a good photographer tries to get the best data possible at the time of capture; the principle of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ definitely applies to photography! But does it really matter if you have to walk into a scene to physically remove a stick or whether you clone it out in post-processing?

For some magazines it matters. Many editors will not accept nature images that have been ‘digitally manipulated’. Aside from the definition issues that arise with such a term, what does this mean? At the time of capture, a scene can be manipulated or altered from the eye-view of the photographer by the use of special filters, lens choice and ‘pruning’ but the same effect will not be accepted if done at home on the computer? The silliness of this position is revealed when we compare the reaction to traditional, black and white photography to digitally altered, colour images. There is a certain amount of gravitas associated with black and white imagery that is likely left over from the fact that photography was birthed in a world incapable of colour expression. Modern fine art photographers tap into the flexibility inherent in this tradition and present their work in black and white. And yet, if we were truly representing reality, wouldn’t all nature images submitted in black and white be rejected by Purists now that we can shoot in colour? The legitimacy attached to black and white expression survives because of its origins, not its accuracy in communicating reality. It is an allowed exception in the nature photography world to the demand for realism because it was the only way a photograph could be made in the beginnings of the craft.

Framing the debate as a question of ‘how far’ you can go with digital manipulation is a direct result of viewing the camera as a device to record reality rather than a tool for representation or expression of real things. We have become hung up on seeing the camera as a way of communicating information about our subjects and forget that we cannot replicate our three-dimensional world into two-dimensional ‘facts’.

This type of thinking has brought us to a zero-sum game. The Purists refuse to embrace new tools of expression (like digital technology) and are limited in their growth as artists and photographers. (At this point, a short clarification is in order: we do not think all those who shoot in film are Luddites. Medium choice is the artist’s prerogative. We happen to shoot both digital and film for various purposes of expression). The Processors straddle the grey-ish area between photographers and software artists. Neither side can understand the other and believes that their perspective is the morally correct one. Where do we go from here?

We have to re-frame the debate. If we can junk the distinction between communicating information and communicating artistic expression, then we can approach a photograph for what it is rather than what it should be. All graphic art should be judged on how well it expresses its subject matter, and nothing else. If the idea or story the artist meant to convey is successfully told, then the image succeeds. If not, well…time to practice some more.

This means that we all have to adjust to the idea that a photograph is an illusion, a representation, and not literal truth or reality. We as photographers need to do two things: educate the public by not pretending our photographs are ‘reality’ when they are not, and be permissive with each other to avoid that tendency of photographers to pretend they have only ‘manipulated’ their image to make it look ‘like what I saw’. Who cares? The viewer was not there with you when you snapped the shutter. She should be encouraged to engage with the image for its own sake rather than be called upon to compare your work with some objective realty. When we free up photography to be about expression, then this medium will really soar.