Some thoughts on Photoshop and veracity

16th December 2008

(0) Comments | Tuesday 16th December 2008

I recently held a solo exhibition of landscape photographs from a trip to the Outer Hebrides. The exhibition went very well, but a number of comments were made about my prints and Photoshop that I would like to refute. Ordinarily I try to avoid discussions on camera brands, camera types, image manipulation or any of the other technical aspects of photography. It holds little interest to me, and I don't believe the average viewer or buyer of my limited edition photographs is really that bothered what camera I, or any other photographer, uses! Would you ask a painter what brush they used? What interests me is the experience of making fine photographs, and this is what I enjoy discussing with other people and hearing about their experiences in return. To cut to the chase though and regarding the veracity of my limited edition landscape photographs I do NOT overly manipulate, add, subract, saturate or otherwise alter the image from the scene that my eyes actually saw and experienced. The digital negative (the camera RAW file) captured is very close to a finished print. That word 'overly'. To be exact, I blend exposures to open up shadows and return detail to highlights which makes the print closer to the dynamic range that the eye can experience (which is very similar to what a skilled film photographer would do during exposure and film development), and this process does add a very small amount of saturation to the print, but no more than what my eye experienced and what is lost in the camera capture. Dust spots from the sensor are cloned out. The file is sharpened, contrast subtly tweaked to give some snap to the print, and a border added. That's it. Nothing added, nothing subtracted, nothing combined. Simply Nature at her best and my attempt to make a print that reflects what was actually there. My limited edition prints are what I experienced! What I spend hours, days and weeks in one place waiting for. Maybe going back year after year. These scenes aren't ten a penny and I've got to spend a lot of time and have a dose of luck and good planning to ensure I am there at the right time to see and experience these scenes of wonder and beauty. Which is why, across a whole year, I will maybe only make 20-30 photographs that I am willing to sell as limited edition prints in my portfolio. Photoshop has nothing do do with it, it's just Nature! Of course it can also be argued that it is only the final image that counts. As with painting, does it matter if the painting was made 'en plein air' or from memory/sketches/photographs in the studio? No. It is what the artist/photographer pre-visualised or wanted to convey and hence what the viewer sees or experiences that matters. Yawn, enough said, I'm not actually that bothered upon further reflection. I enjoy making my photographs and a lot of people get a lot of pleasure from viewing them and hanging them on their walls.

Leave a comment

< back to other news