Whenever the term digital photography is mentioned, what comes to mind in most people is, instant auto everything, manipulated imaginary, computer enhancing, even switching heads is fair game. Yes this can all be done, if you choose to do so.

The truth of the matter is that every shot you see in a magazine, book, poster, bulletin board, especially advertising, has been cropped, enhanced, pushed, airbrushed or touched-up in some way. That’s why photography to many people is not considered a true art form, and to some extent, they’re right. It upsets me to think that my work is being judged by this mentality.

When you drop off your film for developing, even to a pro lab, what you get back is not what you shot, that’s why the shots are not what you expected. All photography, thirty-five millimeter and the like, does not equate to standard sizes and are cropped and resized, and if necessary, enhanced, touched-up, lightened or darkened, air brushed and so on……

The cameras I use have dead frame viewers. What you see in the viewer is exactly what you get. Composition is my strong point, I compose the shots with the camera, not in the lab.

I develop and print my own pictures, just the way they come from the camera. I call it “True Art Photography”, shoot and print, with no steps or stops in between. I don’t need some lab guy playing with my images to make of it what he thinks my shot should look like.

When an artist paints a picture, he paints it from top to bottom, side to side, filling the entire canvas. When he’s done with it, he doesn’t cut away the parts he doesn’t like or have someone repaint the areas that need help or color. Why do we allow photographers this privilege?

I wonder how many really great shots, would really be great shots, if they had to stand on their own?