One of the biggest complaints that I hear from people in the business is that with the availability of Photoshop and other image-editing software (both in-camera and in post-processing), “anyone can produce great photos.”  They note that creative vision is becoming less and less common, and its being replaced with the “I’ll fix it later” mentality.  I definitely see this (look around Flickr and you will too), and to some extent I’m guilty of snapping a photo, knowing that I’ll be cloning something out in post.  You probably do too.

My issue, then, isn’t with my mentors, but with myself.  How much can I justify altering a mediocre photo to make a good photo and still be okay with it?

Take for example this image I’ve recently reprocessed from the Fisher Towers:

The Fisher Towers, in color

My problem with this shot isn’t the harsh light, or the fact that its not at all representative of how pretty the Fisher Towers can be.  Its that I really want to like it.  But, its just mediocre.  Others on a Naturescapes.net forum recently agreed that its definitely not a wall-hanger.  But, when I convert the image to black and white, that harsh light is suddenly working its magic.

Fisher Towers in black and white

The image still won’t win any contests, but its drastically improved.  So, by digital manipulation, I converted a mediocre image into a better one.  The problem I have with this is that I didn’t set out to make black and white images that day.  Maybe I’ve just over-analyzed this.

I ask you, though: where does the creative process stop?  I have a feeling most will answer indicating that for them its a continuum, but where is the line drawn?  Knowing that I didn’t set out to make black and white images that day, are you okay with my displaying this as art?

I’d love to know your thoughts!