[Steve]

It’s a great topic

I guess there are three sides to the arguments though…

The first is if you are doing reportage photography then other than minor blemished and dust the picture should be untouched. Nothing should be added, taken away or moved to alter the ‘story’ in any way. This I fully agree with and it amounts to lying to the viewer about the scene or events that you are capturing. Just recently a New York Times staff photographer with a long service was fired for altering his shots and another from Reuter’s was also shown the door and all his images where removed from their catalogue – this I fully agree with.

The second is the shooting for a contract – if someone employs you to do them a photography job then you are not shooting for yourself and are more than likely working to their brief. In that brief it should be outlined what the results should be and how much manipulation you are allowed to use to get them the results they require. Whatever it says, you should not worry about it as it is not your problem. In some cases you will not be being employed as a photographer but as a person capable of creating a image using photography as the medium. The other side of the coin here could be something like wedding photography, where you would be expected to document the day but spice up the pictures to make the best out of the location and possibly remove blemishes, smooth the bride’s skin etc. The client probably isn’t knowledgeable enough to know what they want in the latter situation but are very likely to be pleased with the results when they see them.

The third situation is shooting for your own pleasure – this is the one that gets tricky. If you are shooting for your own pleasure then it shouldn’t matter what others think, however as we all know, we like to show off our photography and get feedback. Unless the feedback is given with an understanding of what you as the photographer were trying to create then it can often be negative or even miss the point completely. Some works are obvious that they have been heavily manipulated and are definitely in the ‘art form’ rather than ‘capturing a scene’ style of photography, take a look at anything from our very own member ‘automation2’ for great examples. Like them or not he is definitely aiming for the art sector with his works. The more ‘normal’ looking stuff is where the real arguments begin though as this is where good processing will become difficult to spot and the scene could be heavily manipulated and not represent the original but yet still retain total credibility. This to me is equally as valid as ‘automation2’s’ work as long as it is not being used in a reportage context or deliberately being presented ‘as shot’.

And the ‘can’t polish a turd’ theory isn’t exactly true anymore. Sure it is not easy, but for a very skilled PS user who may be a poor photographer, the results can be achieved. I know one such person who has a background in Photoshop work and receives great praise for his photography and has claimed numerous competition wins, yet his un-manipulated shots are very weak and probably a great deal worse than the average persons.