As a photographer going on 60 years or so, I’ve pondered digital imaging and editing, and have always been respectful and limited in tweaking in, or out of, the camera.   I’ve written on this in my photographer’s statements accompanying exhibits, and want to share the thought:

     Given the way digital cameras can “fix” some issues, and the way a computer editing can “fix” more issues, often a photo comes out a little different than the way analog imaging might have delivered the same photo.  I’ve come to conclude that actually, because of the wide latitude of light extremes that the eye/brain can process, the images that digital photograph can produce are more reflective of what we see than “older” photography could render.   I’m reminded of comments from Paul L. Anderson, writing more than a century ago in his book The Fine Art of Photography (1919), who noted that manipulation of exposure, development and printing could make morning appear the evening, and vice versa, but cautioned “…. It is desirable, in photography, not to deviate from the truth more than is necessary.”

     But later, he conceded “departure from facts” could sometimes enhance the message the print is intended to convey.  He told the story of someone who once reproached British Romantic landscape painter J.M.W. Turner for his artistic exaggeration.

“I never saw a sunset like that.”

“No,” replied the painter. “But don’t you wish you could?”