UPON purchasing Olga (my not-so-old and faithful DSLR) I've plunged into photography and it has since supplanted reading as my main hobby. Not having the time to enroll in a formal photography class, I managed to learn a little of the art through a lot of trial and error - exploring how the different switches and knobs can produce various effects - and a lot of internet research in photography websites and discussion groups.
Purposely acting the role of the sponge, I soaked up all the information I could take. Since I like reading, I had no problem navigating various websites and forums just to read up on the basics of digital photography and on different shooting techniques, and later on applying them on indoor and outdoor shoots. Little by little, I began to see a system in all of it to the point that I felt confident enough to ask the right questions in the forums.
(Note: You see, photographers are some of the most snobbish people you will ever come across in online forums. For them, there is such a thing as a stupid question. If you don't do any advance reading before joining in the discussions and it obviously shows in your postings, then you will be treated with sarcasm, contempt, or a combination of both. The kinder ones will just ignore you completely.)
In my various interactions with photographers in different online fora, I discovered that a majority of today's digital photographers edit their pictures. I'm not sure why I feel bad about it given that I'm not a serious photographer. But I guess the nagging thought in my mind is that editing pictures - regardless of whether one refers to it as mere "enhancing" - is cheating.
One thing that made me fascinated about photography is the thought that it is possible to capture the magic of a fleeting moment forever in a photograph. And to this end, photography is essentially a process of capturing, rather than creating. The environment already provides the material, and it is up to the photographer to be creative enough in taking and sifting the material in order to capture a good photograph.
In my interpretation of what photography should be, all the processes involved in capturing a good photograph should end once the photographer presses the shutter button. (Hence, the title of this blog - the Sanctity of the Shutter.) Anything that happens after the click of the shutter that somehow affects the resulting image therefore enters the realm of editing.
I've visited a lot of photography sites and while I naively praised some photographers for the quality of their pictures, i belatedly realized (and they admitted) that they routinely edit their pictures to get rid of unwanted details and to modify the sharpness in certain areas of the picture.
Now with all these "photo-editors" around, I've got to ask: Are there any pure photographers amongst digital camera users? Don't we all just have thousands of digital artists masquerading as photographers?
The bleak feeling I get whenever I ponder on those questions made me once seriously consider switching to film photography because it seemed that editing pictures is not as widespread among film photographers that I know of. (Baguiobean, I do hope you are not editing your pictures, because I'd really be disillusioned if you did, haha.) But then, after assessing my lifestyle, I decided to go for convenience and retain Olga. The element of the unknown in film photography appeals to me, but I realized that I'm still largely in the trial-and-error stage, and a DSLR's quick review function will help me learn faster.
I was told that this issue has been around for a long time and looks like my comments on the matter are just a late addition from the purist side. But until I come across a definition of photography that specifically states editing is part of the photography process, then I'll always tend to have a bit less respect for the work of those who edit their shots.
No edits here.