This is an email that I received from a former art teacher who is a member of a photo club that I attend.
Hi Tom,
On occasion I look at and read the online site Digital Photography School. As you well know , more times than not the info goes right over my head. But I did trip on this in this week’s email and thought you would EITHER enjoy reading it , OR it would set you in a tailspin. It sounds like February’s Shooters’ meeting.
Thinking of you,
Cynthia
Do check it out.
My response:
Cynthia,
Thank you for sharing this article. I had read it a while ago. No tailspin, though.
Competitions now are savvy enough to stipulate when they do not accept manipulated images. Most "open competitions" accept them.
There is nothing wrong with purists and journalists who restrict themselves to only tonal adjustments. I often do that myself. However, if you are creating a photograph as pure art, by definition no restrictions should apply. Otherwise art becomes stagnant and creativity becomes suppressed. Whether or not an image is manipulated (as all images are to some degree) or not, quality and impact is determined by the skills of the artist. As you well know there are many images that we come across that are extremely trite, boring, poorly composed, yet technically accurate reproductions of what the photographer witnessed. Personally, I go to my happy place when I see those, politely bite my tongue, and hope that I don't blurt out something offensive to that person who probably is very pleased with what they have captured.
Keep creating art! It doesn't have to be beautiful, accurate, or anything other than whatever you want it to be.
Thank you for letting me rant about this again.
Tom
