You can still come across the photography “purists” now and then. Invariably they were active photographers prior to the digital days, and very serious ones at that. They’re the ones who frown upon the “tweaking” of pics in programs like PhotoShop. “A really good photographer”, they say, “doesn’t need to rely on props like PS. They do everything in camera”
Yes, I can see where they’re coming from. And I myself have feared the purist wrath to such an extent that I even opened 2 flickr accounts – one for my “purist” photography, and one for my more creative photoshop experiments.
As time has passed my fear is lifting, and I’m finding more and more of an overlap in my work, often employing PS to enhance or create effects in my “purist” account. I still maintain both flickr accounts tho, as the work that goes in my second account is actually more “art” than photography and I still think a distinction is of value, especially for flickr friends that follow my photo stream and don’t neccessarily want my “artworks” clogging up their stream. If I had to start again I’d probably have opened a Deviant Art account in place of my second Flickr account.
Notwithstanding all of the above, there is one thing that really irks me: When you see pics on flickr that proclaim in the caption: “NO photoshop or post-processing!” (“look mom – no hands”).
Not that these pics aren’t good. On the contrary they’re usually brilliant. BUT they need to stand on their own 2 feet damnit! If they’re only gonna appear “good” after taking into consideration that they did not use Photoshop, then quite honestly they’re not “good”. They must wow me regardless – without having to read the caption.
Its kind of like saying:
“Look: my answer: 2 975.985….
(74 849.84 – 98 657) divided by 8
and I USED NO CALCULATOR! “