Photoshopped Images

It seems that the arguments about digitally manipulated images will go on forever. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the arguments, its basis is that photos that have been manipulated are no longer photosgraphs, they are digital art. While I understand this argument, generally I don’t agree with it. The reason I take exception is that traditional photos have always be manipulated. In traditional film photography, you can alter images in the camera as well as in the darkroom. I have made multiple exposures (some not intentional) in the camera. In a medium format camera, you can do it by not winding the film. The resulting image is comparible to a composite image created digitally.

There are tons of ways to alter images in traditional photography including retouching negatives and prints. The truth of the matter is that most of the effects that can be produced in Photoshop are based on real world darkroom techniques. Unfortunately, because it is much easier to alter a digital photo, it is done much more often. Many people are overdoing various digital filters and feel that they can turn an average photo into work of art. However, 99% of the time it’s a matter of garbage in/garbage out. 

As far as I’m concerned, I think it’s all about the quality of the final image and whether the client (and myself) is happy with it.

Some of the images in my portfolio have been significantly altered, while others are straight off the memory card. I don’t have any of my film images posted on the website. There are two reasons for this 1) I prefer to keep my portfoilo current and older images get cycled out, and 2) I am not happy with any scans of my traditional photos.

Here is one of my favorite manipulated images:

If you have any thoughts about this topic, post a comment or send me an email. Thanks!