How often have we looked at a photograph, and thought “That is a work of art”?
How often have we looked at photos of prominent people, and thought “It is amazing what can be done with make-up (or airbrushing)”?
How often have we stood looking at an artwork, and thought “That could be a photograph”? In this context, a recent article, shared on Facebook, posed a similar question with “27 Stunning Works Of Art You Won’t Believe Aren’t Photographs”
Recently, a good friend prompted me to trial Adobe® Photoshop®. He likened it to what might have been done in a darkroom in earlier times. He had noticed, as I had, that some of my photos would benefit from ‘tweaking’. In some cases, it appeared that my camera had not been held horizontal (the wine effect, perhaps?). In other cases, the camera lens had played tricks with perspective.
I was always encouraged to think before shooting – very important in the days of film. The subject needs to be framed; you shouldn’t make subjects squint because they are facing the sun; allow for lighting and shadows; hold still when shooting; and so on. However, in the heat of the moment to grab that image, we sometimes forget even the basics.
Here is a classic example. We were walking around Arezzo, in Tuscany and heading up the hill towards the Duomo. I thought I spotted an interesting view of the cathedral, with a number of motorini in the foreground. Perhaps in haste, the resulting photo was not as I would have hoped (above). Correcting the tilt and perspective gives a much better image (below).
This enhancement was arrived at with three Photoshop® ‘tools’ (rotate, correct camera distortion and crop) – the first three I have learnt! No doubt, I could have adjusted many more aspects – brightness and contrast perhaps. Never likely to win a prize, this photo simply serves to illustrate my point.
A couple of years ago, I met a distinguished Professor of Photography from an American University. Naturally, I am always impressed by his photos. He does post straight from the camera. But even he admits to using electronic trickery for some photos. Should we admire work that has been enhanced with electronic assistance? Or should we reserve our praise for work direct from the camera? Can we tell? Does it matter?
So, the question remains. When is a photograph [not a photograph]?
This post is dedicated to a number of people whose photographic work I enjoy for a variety of reasons. Debra at Bagni di Lucca, Janine at Destination Umbria, Krista at Rambling Tart, LindyLouMac at News from Italy, and of course, Bruce E and Ken M. I draw no inference as to whether their work is direct from the camera or enhanced!
Adobe® & Photoshop®are registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.
