A photograph of a tree processed in L*a*b*.
Ever since my first trip to Wave Hill, I’ve had this thing about tree bark. I encountered some trees with a camo-like appearance, with subtle shades of green and yellow. They made for some interesting, almost abstract compositions.“If there is indeed any such thing as abstract photography, this certainly qualifies”, I thought. “Tree bark is Nature’s form of abstract expressionism”.
The colors are subtle and muted, but they’re there. Just something the L*a*b* color space is dying to bring out.
If there’s a color challenge, L*a*b* is there to meet it. Because the L*a*b* color space is all about color. And, also not about color. It separates color from luminosity, and when you do that, you can do something which is impossible in the visible world; create a color which is fully saturated regardless of its luminosity. That means you can have a fully saturated black or white. You read that correctly. And when this impossible situation is converted to the “reality” of the RGB world, some wonderful things happen. Things than can’t happen in one color space alone.
This means that you can take the subtle near-neutral colors of nature, such as rocks or tree bark, and pull out some incredible colors, without the limitations set by their luminosity. There be color in that there tree bark, just waiting to come out. And here it is, made possible through L*a*b*:
 |
 |
 |
These examples are not “false color” images. These are the actual colors in the bark, emphasized, not unlike Expressionism or Fauvism. They are in fact one way in which I visualized the tree bark at the time I captured the image, being able to see beyond the muted tones that were there.
Producing these was not a case of merely adding saturation. When you do that, the colors become more intense, but are washed out or dulled by their own luminosity. You can help this by using the Color or Saturation blend modes, but by working in the L*a*b* color space, I have total control of the color regardless of its “gray” value.
So what do we call this? Abstract Photography? Can there be such a thing?
From a purist perspective, I’d have to say no. Photography’s forté has always been the ability to capture an image as faithfully as possible. To do otherwise is working against the medium. Until photography was accepted as an art form, early photography took advantage of primitive optics and creative techniques to elevate photography to an art form.
But this is not to say that the subject matter itself cannot be abstract, especially when taken out of context. Cropping an image as an extreme close-up can do that. But can digital manipulation make a photograph abstract?
How about Expressionist Photography? Perhaps this is more accurate because their true diversion from nature lies in their expressive use of color.
My feeling is that once you begin to significantly alter an image digitally, it becomes CGI, (computer-generated imagery), aka “Computer Art”. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I just think it’s important to make the distinction.
However, now that cameras can control color saturation just as film once did, and that we can exercise similar control outside of the camera, just where do we draw the line? And do we even need to? Is there a significant difference between blurring an image with a lens and blurring it in Photoshop? Should all digital photography now be considered “computer art”?
Now that we’re fully embroiled in this digital age, perhaps new distinctions will need to be made.
To learn how to use the L*a*b* color space to enhance images, see Color Enhancement with L*a*b Curves.
Lumenicity 