I like to take pictures. I have since I was a kid. My dad had a Minolta 35mm camera that was attached to my side for a few years. I took a photography class in high school and learned how to develop film and photos (and won a few photography awards along the way). This skill lead to one of my work-study jobs, printing boring university pictures in my college photo lab. I learned more there: how to shadow in skies and how to get just the right exposure (underexpose the MFA students because it makes the eyes pop). I'm also the family photographer. Every member of my family has access to a digital camera, but I'm the one who actually takes and distributes the pictures. Thankfully, I now load things up on Shutterfly and they buy what they want.
Thus, I ponder photography, particularly when walking around craft/art sales. Recently, I've sort of grown to really dislike people who think their photographs are good enough to sell. I see these people on vacations around the world. They wait for hours to get the right light. They stand in the best possible picture location, guarding their perch. They can take up to 100 pictures of the same thing. Then, they photoshop the hell out of their pictures, crop the crap out, and sell them. Old time photographers may have waited for the best light, but their shots were limited by the amount of film available. And, there was no photoshop. Any photo editing was limited to what could happen during the printing process (which wasn't much).
There are also now large photo communities on the web. People take and post pictures of anything. Local communities have "picture of the day" sites. Here is one from Minneapolis. Here is one from St. Paul. (The Minneapolis site is particularly good.) I like photo sites. I like the idea of sharing photos. I see places I'll never go. I better understand historical events. But, I now always wonder. What was captured by the camera's lens and what was changed later?
So, I started thinking. What if people could only post/print/sell the first picture they took every day? One shot. That's all you get folks. If it sucks, too bad. No photoshopping. How different would the craft sales and the web communities appear? On one hand, it probably behooves us to see "good" pictures of a particular location or person. They are more compelling. They might have more impact. They could increase tourism to a poor location, for example. But, on the other, what if the photo editing goes too far? What if the power lines are removed, people visit the location, and are mad at the misrepresentation? More abstractly, what does it mean to capture life? Is it okay to get it almost right, or does it have to be perfect like some idealized version of what our eyes see?
I have become rather lazy when it comes to photography. Back in my Minolta days, I had to actually set the camera to get the best shot. Now, often, I'll use the auto settings on the camera. I rarely set the camera to manual. So, in many ways I'm no different from the people who use Photoshop. Mine is a different technology, yes, but technology all the same. I don't have time to wait for four hours to get the light just right, but I can tell you that I took 20 pictures of my white peony. I was playing around with shadows and sun, but still, 20 pictures of a flower that blooms every year?
I suppose I should conclude this post with an argument, but I'm really not sure where I am on this topic. On one hand the "professional" photographers drive me nuts. I'm not talking about people who shoot for National Geographic, who are bound by ethical code not to edit too much. I'm talking about the people who have marginal photography skills but good software skills. Get out of the craft sales! You are frauds! But, then, of course, I argue back to myself, who says that technology-enhanced pictures are not just a different type of art? On the other hand, I appreciate lovely, well-composed photos regardless of how they're created. Maybe if the sellers put up a sign saying "photo-editing free" or something, I would feel better about being able to appreciate their work.
I'm jealous. You always were a better photographer than me.
Posted by: your bro | June 17, 2007 at 09:09 PM
This is an interesting post. I didn't know that so many mediocre (or good-but-not-great) photographers were trying to cash in on their photos. Thinking about my zillions of photos of the girls, I can only conclude, "Business opportunity!"
The first-shot-only or no-PhotoShop rules are also thought-provoking. But I don't quite see where the slippery slope levels off again: isn't PhotoShopping a shot really just another kind of technical manipulation, akin to taking a photo in the first place? I mean, a photo is already artificial, a representation; what's the difference between that manipulation and a software one? Or between a $10 point-and-shoot from Walgreen's and a $1500 digital SLR? Is one more authentic than the other? I'm not sure of the answers to these questions, and I think I tend to lean in your direction, that less manipulation is somehow better, but I can't really justify that point.
Posted by: Christopher Tassava | June 20, 2007 at 11:59 AM