If you’re a photographer, time and time again you hear the sentence “oh, is it photoshopped?” when you show someone a piece of your art.    Often, the real question being asked here is “is it real or is it fake”,  are you a talented photographer or a hack?

I started thinking about similar artistic fields to photography and if this pervading sense of “anti progress” was limiting other artists as well – and me being me, my first thought was music.  How different the music artist has it!    The Beatles were congratulated when Sgt. Pepper was released for pushing the boundaries of what was even  possible in a recording studio, and you never hear anyone asking Aphex Twin why he doesn’t just pick up a guitar!    This got me thinking – why is it a “great” thing to be using cutting edge technology in music, and yet trendy to avoid even DIGITAL cameras in photography?

I think one of the main reasons is that anyone can take up photography.  Anyone can walk into a shop, buy a digital camera, buy photoshop,  upload their photos, apply a crappy filter with one click and start calling it art.  Being a musician has a little more “mystery” to it,  and for most people the tricks used in a recording studio are beyond their scope of knowledge.  There is a deeply embedded misconception about how ‘easy’ digital photography is within the general public however,  and so everyone from Aunty Flo to Uncle Jack thinks that pointing and shooting makes them the new Ansel Adams.    Now I’m not trying to make photography an elitist art – I love that everyone can share it and enjoy doing it – but anyone can taking up painting as well and lets face it, not everyone is up to the task of painting the Sistine Chapel.

So lets clear something up – the Digital in Digital Photography does not make you a photographer by default, does not make skill or photographic theory redundent, and does not mean that we “cheat”.    Photoshop can “save” a few dud photos every now and then if you’re lucky, but it has never and never will be, a substitute for taking a technically good shot.

What photoshop CAN do is bring your visions to life,  add some punch to a good photo, or quickly and easily (and easy aint a dirty word) get rid of aspects of the photo that you couldn’t do when you shot it.

Post-Processing needs to be thought of as an accompanying SKILL to photography, because as any forum-using photographer knows, some people have little understanding of “taste”, when to hold back, and how to process the photo without going well over the top.    The newbie can often fall into the trap of using the same filter on every photo,  using gimmiky tricks etc.  Post-Processing appropriately and with forethought is a skill that is akin to learning darkroom skill.  It’s just less smelly and you can always start all over again if you screw things up.

Musicians are lucky, and I want the same kind of freedom for photographers.  The freedom to make your photo into an expression of your thoughts and your emotions on the subject even if it means shaping the photo after it has been taken.  I don’t want less of an emphasis on learning those basic skills, but the ability to see your photography as a personal art that is only subject to your whim and not the judgements of some stodgy old photographer who thinks he will blow up if the rule of thirds isn’t followed!

If musicians are free to create music with digital help,  to layer their sounds, to create soundscapes that are visionary and to experiment with this technology, why can’t photographers?  The end result is a brilliant album or a brilliant photograph that can change the way you see the world.    Lets not be so hung up on how easy each step is – sometimes the road to brilliance is not always rocky!