OK gents, here's my argument. I very much understand that Photoshop can be an extension of the darkroom, provided you don't go too overboard with special effects, colour correction etc.
First of all, what is photography? It's a word derived from two Greek words, φως (fos-light) and γραφω (grafo-I write).
As we know, there are two ways of 'writing light', or, to be a little more accurate, recording it's shape, intensity, and usually which part of the electromagnetic spectrum it belongs to. One is using photosensitive chemicals and the other is using light-sensitive cells all wired up together. So, each time you press your camera's shutter button, you are making a highly detailed-(though by no means perfect) recording of the shape, intensity and colour of the light being focused by the lens.
Once you start post-processing, you are removing the photo from this initial 'recording', a recording that was not perfect, but that is being rendered even more imperfect by playing around either in the darkroom or with photoshop. Unless you have a memory that can maintain an image of the scene better than the film frame or digital image, by post-processing you are removing yourself from that original 'light recording'.
Now, this 'imperfection' you are introducing into the shot can-and most probably will-make it look better to your eyes and indeed to the eyes of many others, and for that reason alone it is quite laudable. However, I maintain the stance that if all adjustments are made correctly on the camera, it is removing ourselves from the real thing. In the case of Photoshop, it becomes-albeit very slightly so-digital art (not that that's a bad thing).
|