Raw Material

In film photography, each print hand-developed by a photographer is its own work of art. No two are exactly alike, and this splits the creative process into work done in the camera vs. post-shooting processing work. Digital photography is sometimes criticized for being too much about post-processing or for using post-processing to fix mistakes that should have been fixed while shooting. In some ways this is a valid concern.

I participated for a while in a digital photography group that strictly limited the amount of post-processing work that could be done on photos for the group. The reasoning behind it was to develop the shooting skills that would make us better photographers. Although it was a frustrating experience in some ways, it was useful for learning. Early on, I shot one photo over a hundred times trying to get it right. While I never did get it perfect, but I learned an awful lot about lighting, focus, and using my camera while doing it. I still occasionally try to work a shot so that it comes out as perfect as possible, and when the subject and situation allow, retaking the shot is usually a better option than trying to fix a problem in the computer.

An easier version of the goal of having everything come out of the camera in its final form is to focus on getting one thing done perfectly in the camera. In my case, I have a personal bias against cropping shots other than stitched panoramas. In some cases I will crop (not every shot lends itself to the 4:3 ratio), but, if I'm going to nail one thing in shooting a photo other than getting good focus (without which there isn't much you can do), I want to get the framing just right.

In general though, I've come to develop the attitude that what I am doing in the camera is more akin to what a carpenter does when they go looking for wood - gathering raw material from which to make a piece of art. They look for a straight, strong piece of wood with a nice grain. They may find a piece that fits their needs but has a defect. If they know they have the skill to work around the problem, the defect may not matter if everything else is right.

I'm looking for a photo with the basics done right - good focus, good lighting, and an interesting subject - but things like the edge of something in sneaking into a corner of the photo or the color being a bit off can be corrected. I'd reshoot to fix both of these problems if I could, but, if I can't, I know I can work around the problem if this is the raw material I have to use.

The photos on this page are a good example. The subject is one of those people who, when he aware that he is being photographed, wears the frozen smile of someone who is appears to believe that you will be shooting him with a gun instead of a camera. The above shot was quickly grabbed at an opportune moment. It has many flaws, but it was the best of the bunch, so I viewed it as raw material and created the photo below after a great deal of post-processing.

I think the tendency to see a shot as raw material is fueled by some of my choices in subject matter. I tend to shoot frequently in situations where I have little control over conditions, such as flowers shot outdoors in public gardens or macros of frogs in nature. When shooting a stitched panorama, there is no other way to view the set of photos but as raw material.

While I like thinking of shooting in this way, it does raise some questions about ethics. For art pieces, most people would agree that anything goes, but there is still a contingent of people who feel that any significant post-processing is cheating in some form and should be labeled as something other than a photograph. For photos labeled as art or for private photographs, the question of editing ethics doesn't matter, but what about photos to be entered in contests, published in newspapers, or sold?

The first two cases are usually governed by rules created by the contest sponsor or the newspaper, but what kind of disclosure needs to be made to someone who may be buying a photo that is edited, but in a way that is not obvious? It's a question I haven't answered for myself yet. It's a question for which I'd likely get different answers from different photographers and different buyers. I'll happily tell a customer the kinds of edits I have made, but to mark my photos with a label that says "This photograph has been digitally edited." somehow reminds me of the warning labels on toxic substances. For now, I'll leave it to the buyer to ask, and go on with gathering raw material.