An altered postcard I found while traveling in Idaho.

As an artist using photoshop, I am able to adjust a sunset, enhance a seascape, or allow a subject a quick 10 lbs weight loss, but knowing all this, how far do I allow myself to go before the adjustment is no longer the viewed reality? I use Adobe Photoshop religiously and have just started to discover how easy Adobe Lightroom is to use, especially for a quick adjustment and organized storage. These programs are not inexpensive but are considered some of the best tools available for photography and definitely have the power to totally re-imagine a photographic image.

So,as an artist how far do you take an altered image? When is the line between reality and fantasy blurred? We see images daily in our web searches and social media that prove just how much beauty can be altered and when is it the “right” thing to do? My lines blur when the image is no longer something that I viewed but more something I perceived. It’s not discounted as an image, however it is no longer something I can post somewhere as a “real” image, but one that I have to say is “altered art”. Now rendering a person to my perception of beauty is one of total control and one that I would not use as an image representing that person. At that point I’d have to say it’s a reproduced or enhanced image, however that is going to be measured differently for each and every artist/photographer.

The trend now in popular culture is to keep the image as pure as possible. Chuck Close an amazing artist and photographer did a recent photo shoot of several people representing today’s popular culture. All of them had to resign to Chuck requirements of no makeup nor enhancements. These are pure photos, as pure as he could produce maintaining his artistic vision. For me, these photos are dynamic solely for presenting these stars as the guys next door. The looming cloud of popular culture dissipates, by seeing them as everyday people.

There are many magazines who have taken a sort of truth serum when posting models and several models and film stars who refuse to be photoshopped or altered. It certainly says something about their fearless dedication to ethical presentation and exposure. I imagine in the film and beauty industry it takes bold self-esteem to allow an unaltered image for general consumption and criticism. Bravo!!

In the realm of landscape photography, pure image is also being adjusted and altered to the point of fantasy. As much as I like seeing HDR images, fairly soon they become mundane and possessing a very similar aesthetic across the board. I have found the work of Trey Ratcliff a Burning Man participant and photographer sublime. He alone stands out as an artist/photographer using successful HDR images that beautifully represents the actual event and images he saw.

After droning on about altering the digital image, you now know my artistic principle. So where is it that you stand? I know many photographers whose work I truly admire are able to blur the line between image seen and image perceived, but where do they draw that hard and fast line or do they? Submitting an image for print, forum or social media, when in your eyes, does it no longer represent reality and solely become a piece of art? I’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas!!!