What is ‘not photography’? A question that requires us to determine what is photography! Perhaps, we should think about who is a photographer? Maybe not. This is all semantics and potentially the entry into a dark, pointless world of the pedant. Or is it? Lots of questions and no answers. What an infuriating first paragraph. I agree.

So, let’s start again. A photograph is an image captured with a device, that creates a moment in time. A simple and effective definition, I think you will agree. However, that is not enough of an outcome for many people. It leaves them unsatisfied and it is at this point that the photograph created, becomes the image manipulated.

This sense that what has been seen and captured can be improved upon, is I think an interesting mindset to explore. Why do colours have to be brighter and stronger? Skin more perfect and smooth? Skies more vivid? Objects and imperfections removed? Multiple exposures overlayed?

Before you answer any of those questions please don’t hit me with the “photography has always been manipulated and altered in the darkroom” argument. I’ve heard it too often and it is not relevant to the point I am making here. I know that photography has always seen capture as a starting point, by many photographers, for image improvement. That the process of manipulation is part of the photographers process of expression. That’s okay if you want to see photography as a manipulated view of the world, but not if you want it to be an honest reflection of reality. I am well aware of the arguments concerning truth and photography, but again please do not raise them now, as again that is not the point of this article. The point of this article is to pose questions, not engage in time worn discussion.

I’m interested in the belief that some photographers have that they can improve on nature. Is this a sense of arrogance? Ego? Narcissism? Perhaps those words are too strong. You decide.

Whatever answer or word you decide upon, I hope that we can agree that such manipulation is based on a selfish perspective. A belief that a personal interpretation is more successful than what exists. This in turn makes me question on what basis such a personal aesthetic is based. What or who influences the understanding of what should be? How things should look and what the word ‘perfect’ means. Who is promoting the idea that perceived perfection is important or achievable?

I did suggest that this would be a read featuring questions, not answers. I hope I am delivering.

I saw someone recently proclaim that ‘traditional landscape’ photography was dead and that abstract photography was the ‘new’ thing. What they stated was that the real world was boring and that by manipulating an image the photographer was able to express how they felt and therefore that was more interesting and fulfilling. This was said as if it was some great revelation, rather than an obvious observation of the nature of all art. The artist uses paint, pencils and multiple other materials to invoke an impression of what they want to show, through a healthy dose of their own feelings. Photography is not that. Photography documents the seen with accuracy and detail. So why is that not enough? Is it because the act of pressing the shutter button is too quick? Too quick to satisfy a creative urge? Is this the impetus for hours spent in front of a screen fiddling with reality?

It’s a bit like those expensive box sets of The Beatles albums reproduced by Giles Martin, son of the original producer, George Martin. Digital technology is used to make the original recordings crisper and more dynamic, with specific intruments brought to the fore and repositioned within the mix. This is fine and catnip for Beatles collectors, but the originals were successful. They were well received and how the band wanted their music to be heard in the moment. Not surprisingly these new mixes feature the bass and drums more prominently, a fact that I am sure has no connection with the only two surviving members being the bass player and drummer! These mixes are a reproduction of the original with a new interpretation from someone who was not there. Pointless? Needed? Disrespectful?

Now, you may at this point paint me as a backward looking, narrow minded, heathen, and you are welcome to do so, but before you do, may I make a suggestion? That you consider at least some of the questions I have posed here concerning the ‘why’ behind image manipulation. Don’t get lost in the detail, but consider the bigger picture. The image manipulated beyond reality may be a digital image initially captured by a camera, but it is ‘not photography’ in its truest, purest sense. A contentious statement I know, but if we don’t consider the contentious, how do we evolve our understanding? In twenty-five years as a working professional photographer with analogue and digital capture, I have never manipulated any image away from what was captured. Every image I have made has been made in camera. Correct exposure, composition and white balance. That is not a boast, it is a fact. Pure and simple. Photoshop does not have to be a photographic inevitablity for every image. My suggestion is to stop and take a breath before you succumb to its powers and ask yourself if you want to be a photographer, or a painter with pixels creating a world that does not exist outside of your head.

Dr.Grant Scott
After fifteen years art directing photography books and magazines such as Elle and Tatler, Scott began to work as a photographer for a number of advertising and editorial clients in 2000. Alongside his photographic career Scott has art directed numerous advertising campaigns, worked as a creative director at Sotheby’s, art directed foto8 magazine, founded his own photographic gallery, edited Professional Photographer magazine and launched his own title for photographers and filmmakers Hungry Eye. He founded the United Nations of Photography in 2012, and is now a Senior Lecturer and Subject Co-ordinator: Photography at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, and a BBC Radio contributor. Scott is the author of Professional Photography: The New Global Landscape Explained (Routledge 2014), The Essential Student Guide to Professional Photography (Routledge 2015), New Ways of Seeing: The Democratic Language of Photography (Routledge 2019), and What Does Photography Mean To You? (Bluecoat Press 2020). His photography has been published in At Home With The Makers of Style (Thames & Hudson 2006) and Crash Happy: A Night at The Bangers (Cafe Royal Books 2012). His film Do Not Bend: The Photographic Life of Bill Jay was premiered in 2018. Scott continues to work as a photographer, writer and filmmaker and is the Subject Coordinator for both undergraduate and post graduate study of photography at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England.

© Grant Scott 2026