A constant debate, that sometimes degenerates into an argument is the validity of an image that has been "Photoshopped". Even some of the leading exponents of photography, such as Charlie Waite, take an adverse view of digital manipulation, saying it should be done "in camera", not on computer. Well, I think taking that view is a touch hypocritical, not to mention dinosaur like. In the days of wet film there was potential to manipulate all the way through the process. Starting in the camera you could "push" the film; by that I mean use an ISO rating higher than the manufacture intended. A film that was rated at ISO 400 could be used at a rating of say ISO 1600, making it possible to capture images in lower light levels than would have been possible at the normal rating. What was the catch? Increased gain in the final image, but that was often an effect desired by the photographer. A film that had been "pushed" had to be developed differently and so we are manipulating before we even get to the enlarger. Then there was "dodging" and "burning" as well as a host of other techniques such as solarisation that could be employed to produce a vast array of effects on the final print. If that isn't manipulation to produce an image that wasn't exactly true life, I don't know what is.

So then we come to Photoshop. All it is doing is enabling the photographer to exploit the fantastic potential of the digital image in the same way those older techniques were used on the wet film image. However, as with all activities there will always be a certain amount of resistance to change and fear of new technology. Of course there comes a point where Photoshop can transform a photograph into a artistic image and it makes no pretence about its capabilities to do that. This situation came home to roost in one of the major Landscape Photographer of The Year competitions last year. The "winning" image was of a couple of rowing boats pulled up on a beach in NE England and was quite stunning. However on further reflection, the judges decided that the amount of manipulation of the image went beyond that deemed acceptable within the spirit of the competition. Where was that line that had been crossed? Who set the boundary? There is no definitive answer to that, but the subsequent winner (also a good shot) was more conventional in character, a telephoto view of terraced houses in Greenock.

Love it or hate it Photoshop is here and it is a major factor in digital images today, even though it can cost a fortune. The age of digital photography is spread (not equally) between the camera and the computer and that is the way it is. I hope some people will finally get their heads around this and accept it, even if they can't embrace it.

26/01/2013