PHOTOS, PAGE 1

       Editor and prime reporter is Doug Terry, a veteran television and radio reporter in   Washington, DC, (details below)

Thoughts on photography in a post-PhotoShop world, as posted on the NY Times online.

The impact of any art form depends on large measure on the mind of the viewer and what they believe the form to be. A photograph is a specific thing. It is a representation of reality as seen and imagined by the photographer. It can be argued that the base chemical process of film photographer is itself an artificial, imposed reality (and the same for digital processes, too). Yet, over more than 150 years, the human eye and brain have been trained as to what to expect from a photograph.

The time is here when nothing about a photo is \"real\". Photographs are entering the realm of painting, where the artist has all but complete control over what he decides to present and how to present it. Problem is, photographers are not painters. We have not apprenticed in that art form and neither has the audience, in terms of its expectations of photography.

We are losing the value of photography as a distinct art form. Viewers can no longer trust what they are seeing and now have to have a photo explained to them. No work of art, as a starting point, should need a detailed explanation.

Some years ago, I embarked on a project to do abstract light forms and photograph them. I crossed a barrier in that I was photographing something of my own creation, even though it was derived from nature. I knew at the time, with PhotoShop growing in popularity, that the first question from a viewer was likely to be: Oh, you did that on your computer? I've spent a lot of time pointing out that there was no computer involved in any stage of the photograph.

I offer the viewer an opportunity to see something new about the world around them, to open their eyes to a hidden beauty in sunlight. They, in turn, have difficulty getting over the idea that it must have been created on a computer. Does anyone see a touch of irony here?

It seems to me that photographs which are heavily edited should be labeled as such. Others, in the mid-range, should be labeled \"mild\" in terms of editing, while others could be labeled \"light or none\". At least, that would be a beginning in helping the viewer through the new maze of photographic possibilities.

Most photographers, it seems to me, strive to make their pictures different or startling. This is all too easy to achieve in PhotoShop, such as the aforementioned circle of birds around a lighthouse (mentioned in an article in the NY Times). Instead of offering a window into wider perception of the world, we are closing a door in the face of the viewer so that the only thing of importance being portrayed is the photograph itself. This is a dead end street.

Doug Terry, 2.25.10

CONTACT THE TERRYREPORT

       HOME PAGE

end