To Manipulate or Not to Manipulate? by Aileen David

That is a question I’ve been reading a lot of lately. By-the-way, I’m talking about digital manipulation in photography. It creates such ire in as many photographers and digital artists as there are practitioners of both camps. So it is really that bad, or are the purists just being that – purists and exclusionists.

Since the birth of photography we have marvelled on this technology’s ability to capture reality; to freeze time into a single moment. This was its first gift. Then came the “eureka” moment for artists – the realisation that photography can be used as another medium to express their artistry much like a blank canvas and a paint brush. From this sprang a whole slew of styles – side note, if you’re reading this, I’ll assume you have an idea and exposure to photography and digital art.

Now let’s jump across the Tasman (Sea), as it were.

Computers had a similar birthing process. It was first strictly used for…well not for the common man and much less for the artist. It has then evolved and almost replaced the role of our pets – being with it and playing with it 24/7. Again, artists latched on to this and added it to the roster of tools at our disposal and the birth of digital art ensued.

You may be wondering why I used the word “tool” for both photography and digital art. That’s because they are. They help the artist give form, volume, harmony, colour and substance to the dreams and nightmares in his or her head. If they are both tools, is it not then possible to use them together?

Well, enter the age of Digital Photography!
Going digital has made photography more accessible to many photographers who were constrained by the cost of analogue photography. True, the art of the Dark Room is losing ground and I for one am saddened by that; however, the freedom to experiment with different camera settings and techniques is undeniable.

The row I hear is about photographs not being photographs anymore and in fact is being “killed” by digital manipulation. I’ve also read a blog of really annoyed photographers and digital artists alike over the commercialisation of photo manipulating software leading people to think the processes are that easy, watering down real talent.

What makes good art anyway? Notice that I didn’t just say “what makes a good photograph?” That’s because we photographers are members of a wider community. I believe what we produce with our cameras IS art in itself. But for other artists a photograph is an unfinished canvas; it is not what they see in their minds yet and that’s why they go into their “Digital Darkroom” of choice to finish the work and bring out what they see. There is nothing wrong with that.

Artists are sensitive, protective creatures. We defend our art and are our own toughest critics. However, we are also highly capable of seeing the beauty in other peoples’ work and always try to perfect ourselves. Why else share our art on the world stage?

So, if an artist wants to manipulate a photograph, I say good luck to you and perfect your art. Of course, as long as the photographs are your own or borrowed with permission.

For the rest of the world who think they’re artists just because they’ve got a camera or know how to use digital post-processing software, well…it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who am I to argue?