When real is not enough

I see photographers who are quite prepared to accept manipulation of photos as being acceptable in that it makes no difference. However, how many of these same photographers are prepared to pre-disclose this manipulation to viewers of their apparently representational photos? I imagine the answer, is very few indeed. I feel that it is this situation that speaks to the minds of us as photographers.

Are we in fact, as photographers, deceiving ourselves? Specifically, if manipulation was no fuss then why not pre-disclose it to viewers. Heck! Why not celebrate it out loud. Tell everyone how we overlay dramatic skies, reverse images, clone out distractions or pop the colours. The truth is, that as photographers we never do this because we know in our hearts and minds that people will think less of it—we want to hang-on to the viewers adulation. Don’t believe me? Then tell people as they view your images how you’ve manipulated them and watch their reaction. “There’s nothing wrong with the laying on of hands to muscle the world into order” Szarkowski said in an interview. “but there is something quite unique about the photographic idea of standing in the right place at the right time and accomplishing the same thing.”

The stark truth is that we want people to believe that the scene, as depicted, really existed before the camera and we were there! In concordance to the Szarkowski ideal that it was our prowess as a photographer to capture the decisive moment, the perfect scene with the perfect skies and the perfect light. In the process we are deluding the naive viewers and ourselves. We do this not to deliver better than real but to have their adulation. We do this not because we despise people or are self-interested but because better than real has become the visual ecstasy of westernised democracies, and we as photographers are the drug dealers feeding it’s addictions—giving the people what they want.

Real is just not enough anymore