It is important that the retoucher/photoshop wizards have a correct grasp of fundamentals before breaking any rules, as the fundamentals are the rules and they provide the avenue for solving the issues that may present themselves in the picture making process.

Hence the answer to that question would be yes and no together for a good retoucher/photoshop wizard to be a good photographer. Photography itself is fundamentally the click of the shutter; a culmination of decision making and aesthetic skills in composition and lighting. Only with constant exercise will you be able to decide how the shot will be made, and only with constant practice will you know how to make the exposure on film. Once the light and shadows are captured, there is only a little way to alter the character of image; though perspectives now may be tweaked, the technology for changing lighting directions on photographs (not the kind in 3d softwares) hasn’t exactly been developed. This has been observed in the tonally flat and even lighting that’s present in many commercially produced images, so that it is easy to make the images into comps.

Why retouch? It feels like the human quest for perfection have driven the media to create the impossible. It may not be totally positive for that to happen, (take for example, fashion imagery, stick thin models, health implications that arose from the desires stirred up from that kind of images, people desiring to have that kind of physique turning bulimic and/or anorexic.) on a brighter side of that, the technologies have provided a solution to get a lot of work done in a shorter time, correct errors or imperfections not seen when making the shot, and I can only say, exercise your decisions as image makers carefully, as implications may not arise from a short term; be responsible with your images.

As a parting note to this, I end off with this quote:

A knowledge of photography is just as important as that of the alphabet. The illiterate of the future will be ignorant of the use of camera and pen alike. —  Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, in 1923

Consumerism has found its way into many aspects of our daily living and has lent its existence in capitalism. Unconsciously it has become a catalyst for media, marketing, advertising, and lending itself into social consumption. Soon in the early 20th century, consumerism had found itself widespread as a driving force behind numerous businesses and corporations. It has also found itself to be a force behind technological development, for the need to improve and outwit each other, to be the reason of why a product must be purchased. It is because the product claims to be superior over another. Consumers soon get affected by the claims of each individual product. It even has resulted in the creation of doubtful products of questionable purposes. All because to sell, and whoever buys the product will gain a certain form of comfort from it. Whilst having the “best” product, use and possession of such “best” products has made various products a status symbol of wealth and prestige. The cycle is such, and to this day most of our perceptions are still being skewed by these social factors.

As a result of improving technology, photography had much taken over in painting and painted portraiture as a popular medium of expression. Cameras, chemicals and glass plates have found its way where the oils, brushes and canvases were. Soon celluloid films have replaced glass plates, and in less than a century after the birth of celluloid films, they are getting taken over by imaging devices, and it bothers me to what will be taking the place of imaging devices in the future to come.

While the future is always uncertain, I would just leave that to nature, for nature creates the best paths. Being a photographer, I have always been aware of the vulnerability and fragility of an image, it is but a two dimensional representation on a media. As quoted by photographer Richard Avedon, “There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.” A picture is worth a thousand words, and hence is a good storytelling tool. How I have chosen to present my work tells literally of how vulnerable an image is and how an image is only an image. Yet taken into consideration is how most people would decipher an image looking at the content, what the image is expressing; a pseudo-paradox.

We are always in a need to buy more products, and better products, and cannot be freed from the habit of consumption. Have we also considered buying earth friendly and fair-trading products? I cannot answer yes or no, because there are instances for which choices made are being influenced by my own ability over preferences. Perhaps someday all political bodies in the world must completely come to recognizing the importance of ethical consumption and be highly supportive of its cause, as we have to come to terms with the costs of ethical and fair-trade dealing, as processing the materials is not cheap and therefore result in a higher cost. Whilst all that, even ethical consumerism is still the driving force behind the developments of recycling technology. We just got to have more, and better more.

What a musician can make out of his performance relies on his skills on his instrument as well as the material/work that he’s going to perform. Similarly, what images a photographer can produce shows the depth of his mastery over his craft, as how a musician shows the depth of his knowledge of the music he is performing.

Take for example,  JS Bach’s well known Prelude in C Major BWV 846; any musician is able to perform it, as any photographer is able to use his camera to produce an image of an object, for example, a transparent glass bottle.

The late pianist, Glenn Gould, plays it with marked semiquavers in the right hand, rather quirky-ly.

Pianist Konstantin Lifschitz plays the repeated motif of every bar of this Prelude with a softer and lighter touch to create a dynamic contrast. The phrasing is also different.

In the equivalent of photography, a subject equivalent could be looked at in a different manner with the manipulation of light and exposure to bring out different details of his subject.

(pardon me for this part of compare and contrast, I am still in the process of creating the images to illustrate the point photographically)

However, composer Charles Gounod wrote another theme, which we know as his Ave Maria on top of Bach’s Prelude BWV 846, effectively making a new work of art from the already existing work.

Shown here is an arrangement of the work for flute and piano.

In a photographic equivalent, a new piece of work is being produced from the subject, adorned with new elements. Take for instance, the glass bottle, was then being photographed in the hands of a beautiful woman of that particular cultural period. In today’s technology, you can simply montage an existing image of a glass bottle into the hands of a beautiful woman of this cultural period.

In the context of producing an image, the glass bottle could be shot as it is, with existing light, as a piece of music could be performed as it is running through the notes, phrases and dynamic expressions, everything on paper, and the rest is up to the mood of the musician when he is performing the music. On days with good available/natural light, a nice and decent image of the glass bottle may be produced with good tone without much consideration. On days with a fine mood, a musician finds performing music much a breeze, the music performed sounds good rather effortlessly.

When a musician examines his music, he not only learns the notes, along with that he finds places to examine the shape and form as well as the harmonics hidden in it. Through the understanding of the qualities of his subject, here the piece of music that he is performing– gives him the authorship to make the performance uniquely his.

In popular music, bands and musicians have performed countless covers of certain songs, all with a different feel and sound to it, similar to the performances and recordings of classical music, giving them their authorship over the performance.

Similarly when a photographer examines his subject, in this case, a transparent glass bottle, he studies the qualities of the form as well as the optical qualities of the glass bottle, how it reflects and refracts light, only then he could determine how to manipulate the light to change the shape and color of the reflections and refractions and so on. With the mastery they have over their media and understanding of their subjects would they be able to create a performance or image with a lasting impression.

Cameras of the digital era have a lifespan of a maximum of 5 years before they’re obsolete and needs replacing. The lenses used are different too, each batch has its own qualities for the range of cameras it was produced for. Though mounts and other stuff may be the same, the images produced may not be optimal. The lenses now work for the image sensor, a higher resolution sensor would need a lens with a stronger resolving power. The cost of a 24mp digital kit with purpose-specific lenses would be somewhere around SGD$25k, but all that would be obsolete in 5 years, that’s an equipment cost of $5k a year for camera and lenses only. The computer used would cost about SGD$4k at purchase price, that would be gone in 5 years too, and image editing softwares cost about SGD$1055 to buy and about SGD$300 to upgrade.

Aside from the shooting and production work, there’s also an additional number of hours to be put into the back end of the work (post production), which are also costs to be considered in producing quality work. On the plus side is that more visual effects and creative input could be achieved than before. On the down side more work has to be done to break even the capital put in for the equipment while maintaining a fee for the photographer’s work. Every hour of work behind the camera would tie the photographer with computer work for anywhere between two to four hours unless a DI artist (also another cost to consider) does the back end of the work.

That being said, photographers now often give their own products (their photographs) away for free, literally (without additional licensing), and are only paid for their presence in creating the shots.

While many photographers may not be very much aware, it is licensing images that will keep their business going.

Licensing may not be what the client likes to hear, enforcement of licensing is a form of commitment between the client and the photographer to produce good work. Good work goes a long way, and it is mutually beneficial. It could take place between photographers and clients as some forms of special arrangements too, whichever works better. Putting it down on paper is always best.

Does the caller even know how long it takes the photographer and team to set up and style the set for the shoot? Set-up and styling are part of the photography hours, for that amount of time each session that’s been requested it wouldn’t be possible to do anything properly. I hope the caller’s just trying to push his luck.

Any usual photo session won’t take anywhere less than three hours (unless it is a mass shoot set, and each shot may take about 10 minutes for portraits in a portrait studio). A tailor-made photo-shoot can hardly be completed in two hours.

And how about the back end post production work that photographers have to do? The general ratio for photography and post-shoot work is 1:3, every hour spent on photography equates to 3 hours of computer work. How would pictures even be right without this important step? It’s important that photographers complete this step themselves before anyone else lay their fingers on the images.

So in reality, one day’s shoot equates to 4 working days or 32 man-hours worth of work. It’s good money for a good amount of work without the financial burden of a permanent employee.

Digital photography is good, it makes the transition of photography from camera into various mediums quick and easily available. However many users don’t seem to know how to charge for work since the digital media for submission costs only a dollar. Damage well done. No film costs involved, but so much more work! The instancy of digital photography itself is a cost to be borne into the fees involved. Polaroids are instant, and it costs anywhere between $2.50 to $3 per click and pull on Fuji FP100C instant film packs.

Getting undercut is one thing, in the long run no side benefits from it; photographers won’t be able to upgrade and update their equipment as quickly, and clients don’t get the full benefit from the technological advancements for quality work. Unlike photography on film-the equipment hardly gets outdated, same quality of images are achieved every time, drum scanners are high quality, providing image data of at least 25mp.

Times are bad? Or did people make times bad? Or people pushing their luck? Or all of the above?

I’m quite grateful for HDR, it really gives me the option to make images impossible to do if not for its existence. This coupled with photoshop is formidable, for once I don’t see this function to be like opium, but like coffee.