In a recent discussion with a friend of mine who owns an art gallery, and is herself a photographer, she confided that she finds it much more difficult to sell photography to collectors than other types of art. I attribute this phenomenon, in part, to photography’s history as a documentary tool and, in part, to the public perception that it is a product of technology, not a skill of the body and mind. Now that cameras are ubiquitous, there may also be the impression that, while not everyone can paint or sculpt, anyone can take a photograph.
In the last decade digital technology has completely revolutionized photography, not only making it possible for more people to easily and economically shoot, print and electronically share images, but also for art photographers to access a whole range of creative tools that were previously expensive, required specialized equipment or were not even possible. And yet, the new creative possibilities seem to have only decreased photography’s artistic value in the eye of some of the public. In fact, digital photography may now fall into a new category in the public view that is separate from and, for some people, lesser than, traditional film photography.

Through my own experience and conversations with professional art photographers and gallery owners, I have noticed a perspective that troubles me. With increasing regularity, people confronted with a stunning photograph that they clearly find engaging and pleasing are compelled to ask if it is a digital image, and if so, what’s been done to it. The general perception that seems to be emerging is that film photographs are more valuable as art than digital photographs. Additionally, digital photographs that have been digitally processed in any way often are given the least artistic value despite the fact that nearly all digital images are processed to some extent either in the camera or later on. I attribute this attitude, once again, to the technology involved and the access the general public has to it. Film photography is now seen as something a bit more archaic and requiring a set of skills not readily available to just anyone, while digital photography can be done by anyone with a cell phone camera. In addition, some would think that since digital processing or enhancing an image requires even more technology, it therefore requires less skill. With the use of Photoshop, people perceive that anyone willing to spend the time on a computer can turn any digital snap shot into a work of art. I also sense that the viewing public is wary of digitally processed images because of the potential to add, remove, drastically alter or completely fabricate the content of an image. It is accepted that a painting is simply a portrayal of the artist’s vision and not necessarily reality. In many styles of abstract painting the artist is intentionally trying to get away from reality. However, people tend to want their photography to be “real”, although real is very hard to define in any visual medium.

Computer technology certainly has enhanced the ability to do all sorts of interesting things, combining components of various images, adding textures, modifying colors and even entirely and virtually generating an image. However, even though I greatly admire and appreciate this as a completely valid art form, I’m inclined to call this type of art photo illustration or digital illustration, not pure photography. The knowledge that such manipulations are possible may partly be to blame for the public’s paranoia that any visually captivating digital image must have been created in this way. However, I strongly believe that digital photography that doesn’t require these techniques is equal to traditional photography.
I would like to think that with some education, the art viewing public can learn to have a much greater appreciation for the techniques, skill, craft, creativity and mastery required to produce fine photography, whether it is film or digital. Like painters, true photography masters spend years developing their eye, style and technique and they both have the goal of creating an image that communicates an idea or emotion, defines an element of design or embodies the personal vision of a scene. Photographers, like painters, use a variety of tools and techniques to best achieve this goal. Some of these are done in the camera at the time the photo is taken, while others are performed later in the process, but all require a level of competence and ability not possessed by the unpracticed. Many photographers spend days, weeks or years waiting for the right combination of elements to come together in a photograph, and even the masters may only be able to create a few truly great photos in their career.

The public does appear to accept the darkroom processing of black and white film, even though the skill isn’t necessarily understood or properly appreciated. I have yet to hear someone ask, “how has this been altered”, or “is that what the scene really looked like” in regard to a black and white darkroom print, but these are the most common questions asked of digital photos. However, a great black and white photo wouldn’t be nearly as great without superb darkroom skills and creative techniques. Ansel Adams is an obvious and overused example, but many people don’t realize just how much time he spent working on each of his famous images in the darkroom to get them to convey his vision the way he intended. Earlier in his career he was often frustrated by the lack of skill and technology needed to create a print that matched his vision. Much later he went back and remastered many images using new techniques and improved skill. I attended a show of his work that exhibited some of his original prints side by side with the remastered ones. There was no doubt in my mind that the latter photos were better and I didn’t hear anyone complaining that the remastered images were products of technology, not a sign of his matured mastery.

I would like to see digital processing achieve the same level of acceptance and respect as darkroom processing and for fine digital photography to rise above its “anyone with a camera could do that” reputation. I spend a lot of time carefully composing what I hope are visually captivating images, searching out exquisite light and using my knowledge of the physics of photography to get as much quality and detail from my equipment as possible. However, similar to a great black and white film print, the job is not done when I press the button. A digital sensor does not see in the way a human does, with mental filters of emotion, perception, context and experience. A raw digital image can be very flat and lifeless. Not unlike the traditional photographer, nearly every image I take requires some degree of processing using software, such as Photoshop, in my computer or “digital darkroom”. My goal is to get each image to adequately express my personal vision. Four different photographers will create four different photographs from the same location and time. This is partly due to where they decide to point the camera, but it is also due to the fact that each one of them experiences the scene differently depending on mood, perception, personality and prior experience. The digital darkroom is one of the most important tools for bringing out this individual and personal vision.

Unless I’m intentionally trying to create a photo illustration or composite, I do not alter or significantly manipulate the content of a photo. I do, however, regularly use technique and craft to adjust the contrast, correct the color, enhance or tone down saturation and vary luminosity in my images. These are very painstaking steps in the processing of an image in an attempt to bring out what I saw, felt and experienced at the time I took it. Some images require only a few seconds of my time to bring them to this state, while others I work on and struggle with for hours or days. Some images never achieve what I had hoped. Like Ansel Adams, as I learn new techniques or get better at old ones, I often go back and rework images in the hopes of making them better. My purpose is rarely to deceive or mislead (unless it is inherent in the natural composition or light), but rather to create and enlighten. The processes that I use are not a short cut and they are not an example of technology doing the work. Like a painter, or a film photographer, I use tools, as well as long practiced skills and techniques to achieve my intended final piece. Photoshop is a critical and necessary tool.

It may just be a matter of time, but my hope is that one day digital photography will be respected for the skill ,craft and mastery required to do it well in the same way that fine art film photography and other forms of art are. I look forward to a time when a digitial photo is appreciated for its content and the skill involved in creating it instead of questioned suspiciously, as if the photographer had somehow faked his ability to create something pleasing, engaging, controverial or interesting to look at and enjoy.