Photo Manipulation

This image shows a corner store in the old city of Cartagena, Columbia. It’s been given a slight watercolor treatment which also enhances the colors. Is it still a photograph? A watercolor? Does it matter?

If I could be allowed an opinion, I have a pretty strong one on this topic… WHO CARES?

The idea of manipulation covers a wide range. The minimalist end would be photojournalism. There, it’s forbidden to make all but the most basic color correction and cropping. The idea is to present to the public the unvarnished truth as captured by the camera. The problem is, they have already performed the most major manipulation of all – where the camera was pointed and when the shutter was pressed. What is shown has a powerful effect on the impact of the event. If that’s not manipulation then I don’t know what is.

Most fine art photographers have a very different standard. Those standards range from no manipulation beyond classic darkroom techniques to “anything goes.” There are even some people who must spend most of their lives in the 15th century who believe that photography is not an art at all. No comment. By way of perspective, paintings are 100% manipulated by the hand of the artist.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I believe in “anything goes.” The point is to create art. Whether the origin is photographic or manual is irrelevant. From a practical standpoint, my own standards tend to be on the conservative side. I’ll remove distracting objects but I won’t add anything that wasn’t there. There’s a good reason for this. Many times I’ll say to myself “The moon sure would look good there.” Or “I wish I had more dramatic clouds.” Things like this are easily done but if I did, sooner or later all my work would look alike. Since I have very little will power, I think this is a good line not to cross. But that’s just me.

A lot of juried shows prohibit manipulation beyond the very basics. I can see (not necessarily agree) if it’s a purely photographic show. For an art show in general, I don’t know why photographers are so constrained while painters are free to create anything.

OK, that’s my rant. I just want to get a discussion going. Please leave a comment below with your thoughts and opinions.

Subscribe to my Photography Newsletter and Receive Special Discounts


Never miss news or product updates. Be the first to see new releases and receive 15% OFF your next order.

SUBSCRIBE

Comments

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Russian River in Fog

Russian River in Fog

This image is one of my favorites. I think it has a Zen quality in that it came to be only when I thought I had stopped shooting for the day. I was driving up the California coast from San Francisco with my good friend, Dave, looking for photo...

read more
Postcards From the Mind

Postcards From the Mind

When someone begins to get serious about nature photography, generally the first thing they shoot is a sunset. After all, they’re pretty, available to everyone, and happen every day — and usually the final image is disappointing. They’ll then take...

read more
Luck, and What You Make of It

Luck, and What You Make of It

I’m sorry that it’s been a while since my last newsletter but I’ve been out of town and wasn’t able to access my computer for some time, so here goes… Every good photograph, whether the photographer admits it or not, has an element of luck. Being...

read more