Of all the arts, photography seems to be the most difficult to get a cognitive grasp of. These pictures I pose as questions. Both were shot on manual settings and were not manipulated after downloading.
Though I could have shot these with a landscape setting or perhaps if they would have been less dramatic I could have punched them up in Photoshop I did not. And though I have nothing against photo editors, (I occasionally use them) for some reason, I feel better about having these “clean” copies instead.
But if it is all about the image, why would it matter how I arrived at it. In fact, you could argue that because I did not put in the work after, did not take these that extra step, that they are less artistic than they could have been. You could argue that extensive use of Photoshop is much more akin to art than simply taking a picture.
After all, and this is one way in which photography is so unlike any other art, I can take my DSLR, put a blindfold on, move in some random fashion, and press the shutter, and there is a possibility that I could end up with a great picture. You cannot do that with a paintbrush, a word processor or a musical instrument.
If I do that, and end up with a brilliant picture, what claim do I have on it and is it still art?