After having downloaded the free trial of Lightroom in no small way do I understand the inherent capabilities of a high-quality photo editor. However, I worry that it’s use is a double-edged sword. Part of me is hesitant to change a photo too far past the original out of respect to natural photos. On the other hand, as a photographer friend told me, “using photo editors doesn’t change the fact that you have to take a good photo in the first place.”
At my high school, the photography class they offered was much more focused on edit first and take photo second. In fact, the first few WEEKS were comprised of learning how to effectively use photoshop before the class ever touched a camera.
This kind of view towards fix the problems instead of not making mistakes in the first place run rampant in all aspects of American culture and it’s evident of a loss of value in quality. The fact that we want to change what we do have to be good instead of making what we do have that much better is a backwards philosophy. Photo editors like filters and otherwise editing can send the wrong message to people who would be much better off just learning to take photos.
There is a piece of the puzzle that I definitely can agree with and that is the fact that photo editing can be another form of artistic identity and to creatively edit one’s photos is an extra step in the art form of photography. I suppose some people could argue that it’s an unnecessary step, still, it’s a step that can make photography your art form above someone else’s.
This is a step I’m just now discovering, and it’s something I expect to change me in small ways. It’s another step in my art. What is your opinion of photo editing software?
