Title • yeah, so I told him ...

Yesterday's entry provoked an interesting discussion on the role of Photoshop within photography and I'm sure that I don't need to reiterate my own views again, but ...

For me, Photoshop – like a camera, or a lens, or a flashgun, or an enlarger – is a tool. It's something that I use to make photographs, or for the purists, it's something that I use to make images. And that's it. For me, it's simply something I use.

Take today's shot as an example (which like yesterday's is one that I'm not entirely convinced about, but my wife likes it): I knew that this shot would require some post-processing, as while the elements and main colours are fine, the lighting was fairly dreadful. It was a dullish day, with a flat, bright sky, and I guess I could have walked on by, and not taken the shot, but I thought the body language and complementary colours of their shirts was worth recording. So, the post-processing in this case is an attempt to focus on those aspects of the shot that I think are interesting, while playing down what I see as the deficits in the scene itself.

Interestingly, if I'd had a toy camera with me, it might well have produced a shot broadly similar to this one. But I don't own one so have come up with something broadly similar in style using Photoshop. Is that 'cheating'? I don't think so, but would guess that some people might.

12.15pm on 18/8/05

Canon 20D

EF 70-200 f/4L USM

122mm (195mm equiv.)

f/4.5

1/1250

aperture priority

+0.0

evaluative

100

no

RAW

C1 Pro

minor