You may or may not have heard this term – “Photography Purist,” but it is one of major contention and discussion.  Definitions range further than ones eye’s can see atop a magnificent mountain peak.  I understand the film perspective, but in my mind it has holes and I refute this claim as a purist.  With film photography you developed the picture in a darkroom and there are techniques.  Dodge and burn, which is a very common tool in many post possessing application of the digital-age, were born in the darkroom.  These techniques are altering how the photo is being developed from the negative.  Ansel Adams admits to developing an image several times to achieve the photograph he had in mind.  Was he a purist?  I don’t really care – he was a phenomenal world-renowned photographer.

So what is this purist thing about?  Wikipedia states that “a purist is one who desires that an item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences. The term may be used in almost any field, and can be applied either to the self or to others. Use of the term may be either pejorative or complimentary, depending on context. Because the appellation depends on subjective notions of what is “pure” as opposed to “adulterating” as applied to any particular item, conflict can arise both as to whether a person so labeled is actually a purist and as to whether that is desirable.”

I don’t see this as at all possible in photography – not even film.  The only purist, in this sense, is the individual observing a scene and keeping it to him/herself and not uttering a word about it to anyone.

Digital manipulation opens the doors to some incredible creativity.  The vision of ones “minds-eye” is where it is at in my opinion and pure is boring in my book.  How would it be if photographers captured the very same image – even varying angles would not provide enough uniqueness.  Perhaps different times of the day and seasons would be all the variety out there and that sounds very blah to me.

Just as the definition of purist goes, in reference to being desirable, so can digital post processing.  I’ve seen and also have done some over processing of images.  I truly believe photography is art, although there are some artists (pick a medium) out there that dispute this as well.  You know what they say about opinions…

I really enjoy feedback on my photography.  It is always interesting to hear what it is that someone else sees in an image.  Some times the feedback in right on with what you had intended and other times you hear things you would have never thought of; not to mention see in your own image.  That is what makes photography so interesting to me.

In the spirit of this post, I’ve done some different post processing on the barn images from my last post.  The first of each image is by no mean “pure” in any sense; rather they are the RAW images out of the camera with slight adjustments – I’ll call them “original” for the lack of any satisfying term to the so-called purists out there.  The white-boarder images that follow each are post processed in Color Effects Pro 4.  I love this application and there is no 12-step program in the world that would squelch my addiction to its endless possibilities.  Which do you prefer?  The original or the altered?  There is no right answer here as it is all a matter of taste.