"Greetings & Salutations" is a recent edit of an almost 8 month old photo. The original picture has now generated three very differently cropped and colored versions. That's not surprising as it's of that stand of callas I enjoy photographing. And those leaves are always so full of interesting colors, shapes and shadows with which I can fool around "post production."
Before I go on, I want to emphasize that all I say here is not to tout anything I do (from the original photo to any abstract that may result from it) as good technically or artistically. But simply to explain my point of view on a particular issue with respect to taking photos.
The term "post production" leads me to something I've been thinking a lot about. I gather some photographers do as little as possible to any photo they take. Not wanting for the picture to be other than what it was when they took it. This is fine, as far as it goes. (I myself enjoy those times I find myself wanting or needing to do very little -- if anything at all -- to a photo.) But I do have a problem with an attitude I've come across in the occasional conversation with other photographers (and even some who don't take pictures). I.e., that somehow what I and others like myself who use photos as the basis for generating something very different from the original photo are not really part of the photography world, if you will. That a "real photographer" avoids post production manipulation of an image.
To be sure I recognize the urge to get down what one sees, complete, whole, and "alive" in the shot as taken on the spot. I also recognize and deeply respect the technical knowledge required to do so consistently and creatively.
In contrast, my increasing urge is to use the photos I take as the basis for generating visual art. To be honest, I have wondered for some time if this is not a different category than, say, "digital photography." I suppose those photos I heavily manipulate on the computer could fall in the category of "digital art." Though I hesitate to use that term because the photo underpinnings are usually still very apparent (as in the above photo). And would someone working from scratch, so to speak, on their computer think that using photos is a "cheat" and therefore not "real art"?
So the question remains: what to call what I am doing -- more and more -- with the photos I take? And does it mean I and anyone else working in a similar vein, are not "real photographers" or "real artists"? I guess what I'm trying to say here is that although we may approach and use various "arts" or "skills" differently or even combine them, we can still take each other's styles of expression seriously. And maybe even learn from the differences. I know I am greatly inspired and moved by the variety of approaches in the constantly expanding photography world. (Well, at least the little corner I've so far been exposed to -- pun definitely intended.)
NOTE: In most browsers you can click on a photo to view a larger version. And here’s the link if you wish to read an Introduction, Background, & Technical Aspects post about this blog.
* * * *‘til next take, may you enjoy life in the ever changing light,
[aka: Patricia Kelly] **** If you wish to copy or use any of my writing or photos, please email me for permission (under “View my complete profile”) ****