In relation to my most recent photo I decided to try to write this post, about a question that’s been on my mind for quite some time.
Ever since I started posting photos on a blog, I’ve been wrestling with the concept of photo manipulation. More specifically, to do, or not to do it. My dear wife have been forced to listen to my moral dilemmas every time I’ve been considering posting a more, or less, manipulated photo. If you search for photo manipulation on Google’s images search, you’ll get a selection of photos ranging from people manipulated into zombies, to photos of a very surreal and undefinable nature, or people just getting rainbow colored smoke from their cigarettes. So, the level of manipulation varies quite a bit.
The first impression of these images might be that they are really stunning work, which a lot of them are – images you might wish you had taken… wait a second. That’s the problem isn’t it. At least for me. This is where I always get stuck with the question “Is this really considered photography still?“. Hence, my big moral dilemma lies in, when does a photo stop being just a photo, and when does it go over to being a form of digital creation.
I think it’s fair to assume that most photographers today tamper with their photos in some way, the modern equivalent of the analog darkroom, adding contrast or brightness. But, even take my photo mentioned above (Forgotten), or any other photo of the same concept. Is this to be considered photo tampering, or photo manipulation?
What are your thoughts on this subject, do you manipulate your own photos, or do you just adjust the colors, the contrast, and the brightness. Or, do you aim to make stunning pictures with a bit of extra manipulation. And, do you think it’s right that manipulated photos ares still considered photography?