Gallery

Journal

Store

Note me

"Digital photography and digital manipulation of images shames the art" "Digital photography is cheating" "Photoshop is cheating"

I'm always irritated and even slightly amused by these comments.

Irritating because personally, I believe they boil down to jealousy and blind stubbornness, elitism, and pride. A refusal to accept the facts; that photography is constantly evolving, as it has been from its very beginning. I also think it is to be expected, as people fear being left behind by this 'digital revolution', and in their fear they lash out, or reject the new disciplines (the digital darkroom, computer hardware/software, digtal storage and backup methods, et all) and the technological marvels (the ever-evolving CCD/CMOS sensors that promise higher resolution, dynamic range, and fidelity) that promise to take the art to an entirely new level, and to make it the photographer's as it has never been before.

Amusing because I also see a bit of irony here. When photography began, traditional artists denied it as art, because photographers did not create their images, they merely captured what was already there. Moreover, said capture required none of the painstaking work or long years of learning and practice that painting did. And today digital tools make photography more like painting (and art)than ever before, and what happens? Fellow ' photographers' decry your work as not being 'true photography'.

Har, har.

Digital photography has done the same thing that Kodak did in its golden years: bring photography to the masses, by putting a camera in the hands of millions. I expect the photography ' pros' and '20 year veterans' felt very much the same kind of resentment the digiphobes do now. I honestly do not understand why they must be so insecure. A digital camera does not make a person a photographer no more than a Kodak brownie did. If you do not have the eye, it doesn't matter what equipment you have. Its artistic vision, creativity, and dedication that make a good photographer, this has always been so, and it will continue to prove so no matter how much the photographer's tools change. Yes there are egotistical upstarts, but those have been there since even before the brownies. A photographer's images speak for themselves, and no amount of boasting can improve them. Why must the photographic community always feel insecure?

The purists shout the names of old masters like Ansel Adams in support of their cause, much in the same insipid way that rebellious teenagers wear Che Guevara on their shirts. Here too I see irony, as Ansel Adams enthusiastically embraced every new technological development that helped him realize his photographic vision. I wonder, what would he think of these people?

And I wonder,what breathtaking marvels would he create if he were alive today?