So, let’s say you happen to be spending some time in a popular place doing photography and other things. In the course of your day you wander down to a spot that is very popular with tourists, and you discover an interesting and impressive-looking gallery of photographs. You go inside and read about the photographer – a self-described “purist” who says the photographs show the scenes as they were at the time of the exposures and don’t use fancy and artificial post-processing.
But all but a few of the photographs look like the saturation slider in Photoshop was pushed up to about 100. (OK, I exaggerate… a bit! :-) Highlights in clouds and such are blown out. Shadows are blocked. And colors are pushed in odd and impossible directions.
You understand why such an approach is appealing to folks unfamiliar with fine photographic work, especially when the presentation and pricing of the prints screams “This is Great Photography!” But you’ve seen really, really fine photographs that did not depend on heavy-handed post-processing. In fact, among the photographs in this collection you see a few that take the high road and don’t go over the top, and which remind you of some of those other fine and subtle and sophisticated prints – and which even inspire you a bit.
The artist’s statement keeps coming back to you – the business about being a “purist” and about not post-processing and about presenting in the photographs an unadulterated and real vision of the original subjects.
What do you do? Do you get mad? Do you laugh? Do you try not to think about it? Something else?
Just wondering…
BTW: A few things for the record:
- I am not criticizing any specific photographer, but rather thinking about an issue that we might all have to deal with.
- You do not know what photographer (or “popular place!”) I might be writing about – and since the specifics don’t matter I won’t confirm or deny anyone’s guesses.
- Consider the possibility that I might have just made up the whole story as a literary device for this post… :-)