Pure Photography

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Photography as "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)." The same defines Pure as "having exactly the talents or skills needed for a particular role".

 Yoga Pairs - Unedited Photo

I spent the past week in the Ottawa-Gatineau region of Canada and had the opportunity to visit with a number of the local photographers. Of course conversations varied but consisted primarily of photography related subjects. It was refreshing to talk with fellow professionals so I wasn't inundated with questions about gear and technology. Honestly, give me any camera and I'm happy. As long as I can record my vision and interpretation of a subject on to an effective CCD chip I'm ready to make an impact. 

There were a few things that stood out about the conversations - things which I guess I hadn't really dwelt on since I have been doing this a while and have followed, for the most part, the path of least resistance. Finding the efficient workflow path is vital in today's work environment.

I consider myself a photographer by definition. I'm not a graphic designer. I'm not a digital artist. I like to take pictures. I create scenes, set up my lighting, and meter according to the end result I picture in my head.

In some respects, I feel sorry for today's photographers who have learned their art in digital. Learning in the days of slide and light meters was considerably more difficult but had its benefits. Having learned and perfected the art of lighting and composition means little has to ever be done post shoot. There are lighting tricks to enhance muscle definition, to soften or flatter the face, to create glamour or more impacting imagery. You name it, it can largely be done with lights and lighting control accessories. This allows me more time spent being a photographer and less time being a photo editor or a digital manipulator or image creator. I pride myself on being a purist and the less time I have to spend editing means I do my job well. Something I'm very proud of.

When photographers hear I'm a purist, the first question often is, "Do you use hot lights?" Never. When I commented that I rarely use Photoshop I was asked if I used Lightroom (another photo editing program apparently). I said never. I wouldn't have the first clue about using Lightroom. In fact, until recently, all I used was Photoshop 7 until I upgraded to CS2. A program now about seven years old and in the world of technology is relatively ancient but it does all the simple tasks I need a program to do - adjust the contrast, resize and add my logo basically.

Speaking with several photographers on my Ottawa trip and locally in Alberta, they were astonished that most of my photos are unedited. Not just photos given to clients, but 95% of my printed material as well. I have known photographers that will spend anywhere from 10 minutes on every photo to a few hours. I have a hard time fathoming it. My knowledge of Photoshop is minimal but I can distinguish an edited shot from a pure shot quite easily. I know some photographers go to great length to provide quality, edited images, and I totally respect that. It's their approach and it's their time.

Knowing how to choose a film until 2006 was important knowledge and now, knowing lighting and in-camera settings is really all I need to know to produce compliment generating, creative photos. As they say, great portraits and photos aren't created in the camera but on either side of it.

Side note: My idea of an unedited image, as seen above, is simply resized. No contrast, sharpening, colour correction etc whatsoever. Straight out of camera into article.