Blake

Blake
Originally uploaded by teotwawki.

I'm sure it's a perennial argument on many digital photography websites - where's the border line between photography and digital art?

This was debated on Flickr recently when the addition of a flag for digitally manipulated images was suggested. Jairus said that he felt 'cheated' by photographs that had been altered and wanted a way of separating them from honest-to-goodness, untweaked shots.

I doubt many would argue that cropping an image precludes it from being considered as a photograph, and Jairus went on to suggest that some adjustments are acceptable, giving the example of 'a basic hue/contrast adjustment'. Clearly, it's not a question of absolutes, but of degrees. Adjusting curves might seem reasonable, but what about selective sharpening, or masking an area of colour in a predominantly black and white photograph?

Jairus didn't find much agreement, but his point was essentially valid to the extent that the fidelity of the image is important. The perception of being cheated is only possible if the adjustments are noticeable; then the photograph no longer has verisimilitude.

The pleasure of the moment captured by the photographer is contaminated by its artificiality - it's not just the image being manipulated, but also the viewer.

Perhaps, then, the difference between digital photography and digital art is whether the authenticity of this moment is important; I can't think of any instance where a photographer would want to destroy it intentionally, or any instance in which it would be an overarching concern for a digital artist.

Nevertheless, taking a rigidly purist line with digital photography is absurd (a true purist would abjure it altogether in favour of film) and often seems motivated by a desire to stigmatise, regardless of considerations like talent or enthusiasm.

A poster further down the Flickr thread aptly satirises this tendency to favour methods over results by arguing for the stigmatisation of all photographs taken with auto focus. Yes, some of my favourite photographs were taken by technical masters with years of experience and very expensive cameras, but most weren't.

In Espion Daily, many of the images have been adjusted in Photoshop. The L'espion produces very flat, low contrast, desaturated photographs and I compensate for this by using a set process that maximises the potential of the image; sometimes add a colour filter. It's nothing that couldn't be done with a different camera and a filter attachment. The intention is to approach something like lomography, rather than digital art.

In keeping with the unusual length of this entry, today's image is different.

It's a William Blake inspired statue on the side of the Civic Centre in Newcastle. I took it with a Canon Powershot A200 and worked on it extensively in Photoshop. Around a year later, I revisited it while collating material for Espion Daily and my Flickr Photostream.

I don't think it's bad. But looking over it again, my eye caught one area in particular and I felt that sense of being cheated - where I knew that I'd spoiled that authenticity. I won't say where it is, but when you see it, you might feel it too.