There's something very wrong with the image on the above left, and you may not see it if you aren't a photographer. This shot was taken at the end of a long long day, shooting 6 male models with very demanding hair and makeup requirements. The thing that's most wrong is the back ground, that fade to darker tones from the top down. I don't usually let that happen, and usually adjust the BG lights as needed. After 10 hours shooting I missed that, and this was THE photo. Happily, I did focus on the facial shadows and highlights because this pic was meant to be a very direct rip off of the original Keith Flint photograph. So I got the angle and top light right, and after much coaching the model finally got the facial vibe we were after.
I knew that this shot was going to be pushed hard in post, and that most of the work was 'in post' - so everything turned out OK because I shoot RAW, with the full post production pipeline in mind as I shoot. I know how far I can push in post, I know what shadows and highlights do from both my 5D's (a Mk-ii and a Mk-iv).
So in the central image you see my Lightroom correction and grading, again with the fact that I knew I was going to Photoshop and some plugins after for the real finalisation. You can see the BG fade issue was easily corrected with a brush and some exposure and that I have fixed the tones and colour balance to what I was after. Sometimes I do this more in the actual photo shoot, sometimes I think about it more as a post thing - I don't have a set rule, I have a bunch of them to pick between given the situations. This makes it tricky when your client does not know about RAW and it's flat boring image, and they want to see shots as they come out, and you know you've got a whole lot of work to do before your image is anywhere near what was discussed. So you need to go to great lengths sometimes to explain the RAW process - It's like choosing chemicals and paper once was for me and that's a part of how I explain it.
In the last image we see the final - the brief was to make the picture look like old pinups from music magazines, so grit was added etc, and in the end I got exactly the image I was after. Because I shot RAW, and I took into account the great scope for pushing exposures and the like in the modern digital workflow. A workflow I would not return to analogue from unless it was absolutely critical - and as we get more resolution and in particular larger dynamic ranges and the like, I really can't see me ever going back except for nostalgic fun.
Some out takes from the day, because who doesn't enjoy an out take?
Below on the left we see a RAW image, converted straight to JPG, as is the very top left one from the previous example. I've used the pic with the hair and makeup in because it makes me laugh, and I enjoy laughing. The point though is that this RAW photo, from earlier in the day, is in fact very good - barring the hair and makeup hands..
So, in the Lightroom edit next to it, we see that I have changed the colour warmth, and some hair highlights and very little else. The BG has been corrected again, but to a far less extent and finally the skin tones have been really desaturated. In Photoshop I added the green tint and some skin smoothing where the eyebrow makeup needed a little repair - it's hard to make someones eyebrows disappear and blend in and the makeup artist did a great job, but there's always room for skin correction in my workflow. Finally the 'grit' was added. A mix of film grain and other noise.
So even with the need for gentle correction, RAW is the boss - the hue changes, the dynamic range depth, the uncompressed nature of the file, all are there for you to edit to your hearts content. Yes, you can edit a JPG, but it's ugly. RAW sensor data is what you need, and it can help protect you form your own errors sometimes, not all the times.
Film photographers who develop and enlarge their own work have always had the choice to push and pull as they required, either in the neg develop stage or with dodging and burning in the print stage - not to mention the paper type, paper exposure time and develop time. In the digital world we have those tools in what I think is an even better package, the RAW file type.
Comments