Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Blog

What Is a Photograph?
I still see people agonizing over how much processing they are “allowed” to do on their photographs. But what is a photograph and what does it become if it is processed heavily?
Unique
Photography is rather unique among 2-dimensional art forms. Other forms like painting construct an image directly on the media. It is immediate and tactile. With photography, we usually capture the image whole and then indirectly manipulate the pixels. The final image is produced later.
The tools we have available now allow great freedom in the manipulation that can be done. So much so that some people cry foul and say, “too much, it’s not a photograph anymore.”
Is there a rule here, or are people just expressing their preferences?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Technology
In photography, we never actually touch our pixels, and usually not the media. Light is captured by a sensor or on film. It is digitized. Then we process it as data in our computer. Even when we view the resulting image on a screen or as a print, we still only indirectly see the result of our processing. A pixel, as a digital value, is almost imaginary. It cannot be seen or felt or weighed.
So, we must use a complex tool chain of technology to accomplish our results. Modern cameras are amazingly complex, with processing power that rivals computers of a few years ago. The digital files must be brought into our computer and processed with some of the available application software, depending on our preferences.
Even to view the image requires complex technology. Web browsers or other viewing software using high resolution monitors. Printers with sophisticated error diffusion algorithms, using multiple inks to construct a pleasing representation of what we created. To make a print, the pixels are “sprayed” on a media by a machine, not by our hand.
Even if you use film, it must be developed and printed. It is probably digitized. Then it goes into the technology chain I described above.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Core of reality
But despite the technology differences, a major factor is that traditional photography usually starts with a real scene. This, to me, is one of the great things about photography, but also a problem for many people. In normal practice, we do some corrections and tone changes, remove some distractions, maybe add small things. If we compare the result next to the original scene, nearly everyone would recognize that the photograph represents that scene.
Because of the history of the medium and the nature of the photographic process, many people imply a contract that a photograph must represent reality. Reality being what was actually in front of the camera at the moment of exposure.
If our artistic processing deviates too far from this implied contract, many people get offended. Or at least nervous and filled with doubt.
The question seems to revolve around whether the artist claims the image represent reality or it is art. If I see a photograph of a news event, I expect it to be showing reality. Sure, the exposure could be corrected, and a few very minor distractions could be cloned out. But these changes must not alter the substance of what the image is showing. If a news outlet uses an image that is altered to significantly change the scene, or is created by AI, they will lose all credibility with me. I will never trust them again.
But to me, art has completely different standards. I can’t help what viewers assume, but I can control my intent.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Painting
Let’s contrast this to painting. I believe the same standards exist, but to a lesser degree. If a painting claims to show reality, it must do so. Otherwise, it is art and it can do whatever it wants. But few people expect a painting to represent a scene in exact detail.
Did you know that some portraits of Abraham Lincoln were somewhat false? He was a notoriously homely man. Some portraits softened his features to make him look better. That seems a gray area. Not a faithful representation but not entirely lying.
At the other extreme are the paintings of Albert Bierstadt. He was a romantic artist of the 19th century who glorified the American west. I have been to some of the locations he painted, and I can attest that his images are complete fiction. But they were popular. In those days, very few people could visit those areas, so they believed his paintings as reality.
But the nature of a painting is that the artist starts with a blank canvas and uses a brush or a knife or a pencil to lay pigment on the substrate. It is hands on and considered to be creative. There is little criticism if the artist takes liberties or completely makes up the scene.
Even if you watch a painter working en plein air, the resulting image is seldom a faithful representation of the scene. They take whatever liberties they want to simplify, or eliminate distractions, or change it to be more interesting. It is recognized as being art.
I have never seen one criticized for not looking exactly like the original. People hold photographs to different standards. Even other photographers.
What is a photograph?
So, then, what is a photograph and why do we treat them differently?
I believe it is because many people have a model in their heads that paintings are creative works and can be anything the artist wants to do, but photographs are snapshots of reality and should stay that way. I believe this statement is too restrictive of photography as it exists today.
In the 19th century, when photography became popular, the technology was crude. Photographers could only capture black & white images of still subjects. So the marketing pitch was that they can capture reality in an instant.
We have come a long way. The technology has far fewer limitations. Very high speed or very long exposures can freeze or express movement. Dynamic range is extended. Digital prints are almost perfect. Editing tools are so good that there are few excuses for having an imperfect image – unless that is the artist’s intent. Parts of scenes can be composited together or parts can be “painted” or AI generated.
Because of these greater freedoms, artists are now able to express themselves more. In the same way that Impressionist painters were completely rejected by their Realist contemporaries, we see photographers beginning to push the boundaries and make photographs into something different, and bring criticized for it. Something that does not follow the rules and conventions established by others is initially rejected.
What is a photograph? Maybe it is anything you want it to be. Maybe the distinction is the contract with the viewer. Is it presented as reality or as art?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
When is it not a photograph?
I consider myself a photographer and an artist. In my work, I may alter the pixels any way I want to achieve the result I like. I can blur or sharpen. Distractions can be removed. Skies can be replaced. I often composite bits and pieces of many disparate scenes to create something new. I have been known to stretch and twist and flip with little regard to the “truth”. of the actual scene. Sometimes, the more I can forget the original scene, the better my art gets.
With all of this, I am comfortable calling my work photography. Occasionally I call it art based on photography. Depends on the audience.
Since what I do is pixel based, and nearly all of it came from captures of real scenes, It is clear to me that it is photography. It does not matter much to me where the pixels came from as long as they are my original work. It doesn’t matter to me if the end image represents something that exists in reality.
On the other hand, by my value system, if a digital image is AI generated or entirely drawn or painted, it blurs into what I would call Digital Art. The distinction being that there was no image capture at all.
My position is that I will not use AI. I don’t like it, and I don’t plan to use it to create my images. I do not consider it photography. That’s my bias.
My stance
One of my granddaughters is studying animation. Most of her work is based on 3-D models. Is that photography? Not to me. But if one of those artists chooses to call what they do photography, or if someone calls what I do Digital Art, I am not in a place of authority to prevent it. Labels are not important to me.
So, a working definition for me is that it is a photograph if it was made mostly from photographic captures. The degree of processing makes little difference. If it was substantially generated by AI, it was not a photographic capture. But the reality is, there is no rule, and I don’t think there can be.
My contract with the viewer is this: if I claim the image is truth, it should essentially represent the original – essentially, I am not a photojournalist. If it is art, then almost anything goes. Either way, I claim it is a photograph.
I will not give you an AI generated image and claim it is a photograph I made. Neither will I go on a public rant against an artist who does. The philosophers and great minds can debate the fine points. I prefer to go on just making my art however I want to.
October 21, 2026
Behind a Mask
I’m referring to masks we use for editing digital photographs. They are one of the most powerful tools we have. A lot of magic goes on behind a mask.
I will use Lightroom Classic and Photoshop for my examples, because I know them best, but this is not a how-to article.
Adjustments
Some of the most widely used editing operations in photography are adjustments. An adjustment means that some property of the image data is modified – more or less, color shift, higher or lower contrast, etc.
I believe that all photo editing tools have some means of making adjustments. Some of them differ in the ability to make only global adjustments, affecting the whole image, or masked adjustments, affecting only a selected part.
Whether global or selected, the adjustment alters some property of the image. For example, some of the Lightroom adjustments are temperature, tint, exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, whites, blacks, texture, clarity, dehaze, vibrance, and saturation.There are others. This is just an overview.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Why adjust?
I’m talking about adjustments as if they are a good thing. But why do we need them?
When we load photographs into our computer, they are mostly in the form of a jpg or a raw file. A jpg file (broken acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group – the jpeg was shortened to jpg back in the days when Windows only supported 3-character file extensions) is fast and easy, highly compressed to save storage, and VERY highly processed. The algorithms have already made the decisions about how the image should look in terms of brightness, color balance, contrast, etc. Generally, they look good as soon as you see them. Average, but good. They may need some adjustments, but usually little.
A raw file is just that, it contains almost the raw data off the camera sensor. Almost, because all cameras do some processing of the data. It might “fix” bad pixels or apply some “secret sauce” algorithms proprietary to the manufacturer to correct for sensor characteristics or to give the manufacturer’s “look”. Each manufacturer’s raw format is different.
Raw processing software, such as Adobe Lightroom Classic, reads the proprietary raw format, does Bayer filter demosaicing, and gets the data converted to an array of pixel values. The image we see on screen at that point is rather bland. Contrast is low, colors are not vibrant, it is not ready to share.
By the way, the Bayer filter is one of the secrets that is baked into our camera technology. It is elegantly simple, but a little deceitful. Check it out in this blog. You do not have to understand it to take great pictures, but understanding it gives you a little more mastery of the technology.
I only shoot raw files, but why do that if it requires more work? When it comes to my images, I’m a control freak. I choose to do the adjustments myself according to my vision rather than letting an algorithm do it. And raw files have much more data and can be edited to a much larger degree than jpg.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
A mask
I said that adjustments can be global or selective. Masks are commonly used to do selective adjustments. Being able to work precisely on areas that need adjustment gives us far more precision and control.
Think of a mask like a stencil. It blocks some areas from being altered but lets the adjustment flow through to other areas. Because we are using digital technology, the mask can be “perfect”. That is, it can totally block the adjustment where we do not want it. Or if you prefer, the mask can be a fractional value, allowing us to only let a portion of the adjustment through. This allows great artistic control.
The concept and application of masking was not created in digital. photography. It goes back to stencils, block printing, wood cuts, watercolor painting, integrated circuit production, etc. With our current technology, it just becomes far easier to use it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Power
Global adjustments are a big hammer. They change everything. That is useful, but not adequate. What if there is a small portion of the frame where we want to viewer’s eye directed? A masked adjustment to select only that area does it. It is more and more common to want to selectively lighten or darken some areas, to change the color of a small area, or to change the color or contrast of just the sky or a portion of the sky.
These are examples. It would be impossible to list all the applications of masked adjustments. I believe that masking is a critical skill for photographers doing digital processing of images. If you don’t or can’t do it, you will be at a disadvantage compared to other artists.
If an image is going into my portfolio, or if I am going to print it, it is almost certain that there will be extensive masked adjustments made to it. Masking has become such an indispensable tool that I can’t not use it. Why would I choose to ignore one of the most powerful creative tools I have?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Benefits of AI
From my viewpoint, the last few years of maturation for Lightroom Classic has revolved around more and easier to use masked adjustments and AI-aided mask creation. These are 2 very powerful trends. And yes, AI is in there.
A few years ago, only a few adjustments had any rudimentary mask capability, on an individual basis. Now, it has flipped. The app has extensive masking, and we can apply adjustments through them. A much better model.
Besides the manually created masks, there are many excellent AI generated ones. Sky selection has been around for a while, and it is getting much better as algorithms improve. So is the Subject selection. There is detailed ability to mask people, from the whole person, their skin, or clothes, down to just the pupils of their eyes. And they are pretty decent masks.
Have you tried the Landscape mask? It is fairly new. You can let it find and create separate masks for sky, snow, architecture, vegetation, water, natural ground, artificial ground, and mountains. It is a great tool for quickly separating blocks of an image for individual work. The masks are usually pretty good. But like all things AI, it works well most of the time but fails spectacularly at others. I often try it first to see if it can tease apart the areas I want to adjust separately.
The Adobe “AI” ability to locate areas and mask them is improving steadily and bringing us much benefit. If the AI can do what we would have to do manually, and give even better results, I would be crazy not to use it. Using AI to generate a mask is not at all contrary to my vows to not use it to create my images.
Need Photoshop?
The steady improvement of Lightroom Classic brings up a question I often ask myself: do I still need Photoshop?
Much of the time, the answer is “no”. Well over 90% of my final images never see Photoshop. Lightroom is getting very adequate for most image correction tasks.
There is another class of edits, though. The strength, and a weakness, of Lightroom, is that it cannot create or destroy pixels. It is a strength, because all our edits are non-destructive. Anything can be undone with no damage. But some image manipulation I want to do involves major pixel damage.
A simple case is compositing. Lightroom cannot bring all or parts of several images together as one image. Photoshop does this without breaking a sweat. It is happy to do anything we want to any or all the pixels in an image. Many of these edits are destructive, that is, they cannot be undone. But if that is what I want to do, that is the tool that will do it.
And in Photoshop, the masking is even more powerful. Learning to use masking in Lightroom creates knowledge that carries over, in principle, to Photoshop.
Example
Here is a simple before and after example of LIghtroom Classic adjustments. There is nothing special about the image. It is just one I shot last week in the Rocky Mountains. The first image is a raw image right out of my Nikon Z7-II. The second is after some quick adjustments, many using masks. No Photoshop was involved. Which one, if either, would you rather show people?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Put on your mask
I hope I have convinced you that masking is one of the power features everyone needs to become confident with. Accept it. Learn it. Masks create magic. They are one of the simplest image editing tools to make your photographs stand out.
I think you will find your images will look better and have more impact when you get familiar with digital masking.
October 14, 2026
Style Trends
Does photography follow style trends? Of course. Most everything does. Is that bad? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it depends on why you do it.
People follow trends
Whole industries exist to create changing trends. People follow the trends, because their influencers do and we want to maintain status by being like them.
Try to think of something that does not follow trends. Clothes fashions do. Hair fashions do. Car styling does. “Health” trends come and go. Advice on dating or raising kids or looking for jobs changes all the time. Home decor and even houses themselves change all the time.
Think about it: how valuable is it to the trend setting companies to have us follow trends? They make billions because we are frequently compelled to change our wardrobe or home decor or technology products. If things were static, much more money would stay in our pocket rather than being transferred to theirs. Guess what their goal is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Photography does, too
Photography is not at all immune to this. Some of what we follow is technology improvements. And I am glad of much of that. We now have mirrorless cameras, high resolution sensors, better software editing tools, improved printers, and much more.
I am not a Luddite where it comes to improved products.
But the work we create may also vary with drifting waves of style trends. Much of what we see, especially online, is people following a popular style or copying what a respected influencer does. At various times we have seen lots of black & white with crushed blacks reminiscent of Ansel Adams. Or brash pop art treatments in the style of Andy Warhol. Or weirdly colored simulated cross processing effects. Intentional camera movement is probably in the trend list.
There are whole libraries and applications available to change our digital images to look like your favorite film, because a film look is popular now. The limitations and distortions are sought after to recapture aspects of some remembered “good old days” of photography.
And remember the garish results when HDR first became popular? I’m glad that wave passed quickly. Actually, it did not pass, it’s just that we have better technology allowing us to use it, when necessary, without looking fake.
Lately, highly processed “high tech” looks are in vogue. We have great tools now to increase sharpening and contrast far beyond what used to could be done. We have AI to remove defects or elements we don’t want. Or to add any elements we wish had been there. It. is natural to overdo it sometimes when experimenting with new capability.
It used to be that our camera and film determined the look we would get. Now that anything can be simulated or created, it brings up the question of what photographic art really is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is it supposed to be “true”?
Just today (as I was writing this) I read a rant by a photographer decrying that many people misuse clarity and texture controls and end up creating something that is not completely true to the original.
But what does it mean to be “true”? Must a photograph be an exact copy of the original scene? If that is your goal, prepare to be disappointed. An image cannot be the original scene. It is a 2-dimensional projection through a lens onto a light sensitive sensor, processed through lots of software, and printed on a substrate with inks that absorb light rather than emitting it. Each stage introduces faults and distortions.
At best, you could produce a print that you would say looks a lot like the original.
But is that the real goal? Or should we shoot to produce an artistic representation of our response to a scene?
If this is the goal, as it is for me, then who is to say it is a fault if our artistic creation departs from what the original was? These intentional departures sometimes follow popular trends.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Styles
If our image is an artistic creation, then introducing trending styles is OK. I don’t necessarily think it is good, but no one should say it is bad. But “because everybody else is doing it” is not persuasive to me.
Some people feel compelled to follow the style du jour to be popular and get “likes” on social media. If that is your goal, do what you have to do.
If you are a wedding photographer, I can believe that what brides want is strongly influenced by what they see in the current issue of Bride’s magazine. Likewise, some commercial shooters must follow styles because that is what their customers want. Today.
Styles, by definition, are fashion. They are transient. In my view, they should not be the thing that defines your art. In the same way that you are not your clothes or the car you drive.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Follow your instincts
Our artistic vision develops over time as we have experiences and see great work and practice and try things and find out what resonates with us. Styles are “high frequency” noise. They come and go rapidly and should not greatly influence the vision we are building. Styles should be recognized as temporary trends.
Our artistic expression comes from something inside of us. Our particular way of seeing that is different from other people. Styles try to make everybody the same. But we should fight that normalizing force and strive to be ourselves.
So, experiment with styles when you want. Use it as a learning experience. Or maybe just for fun. “Try on” some and see if there is anything about them you want to keep. It should be guiltless. But don’t let the current prevailing style trend define your art. Trending styles are neither good or bad. Know that if you try to build your reputation on one, it will change out from under you soon.
And do not feel like a failure or left out if the art within you is not what you see the influencers pushing today. It is more important to be true to one’s self. Next week the style will change, but we must keep creating our art. Be confident about your artistic decisions.
September 30, 2026
Death by GPS
Apparently, some people blindly follow GPS directions. Sometimes leading to death. There are actually topics on the internet discussing death by GPS.
Maps
I am on record as an advocate of using maps when you are photographing or traveling. My position has not changed. I will be going on about a 3000 mile trip in a few weeks and I will go armed with maps for all the regions I plan to go through.
A quick summary of my beliefs on this is that GPS is for directions directly to a destination, when you only care about reaching the destination. Maps let us see possibilities. It shows points of interests and all the alternate routes to take.
If I am photographing or traveling for pleasure or exploration, I will use maps. If I am in a city and need to find my hotel, GPS.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Death by GPS
There is actually a wiki topic on “Death by GPS”. It looks like rangers in Death Valley National Park coined the term. There are so many dangerous incidents of people getting in trouble by following GPS directions instead of using common sense that their web site says:
GPS Navigation to remote locations like Death Valley are notoriously unreliable. Numerous travelers have been directed to the wrong location or even dead-end or closed roads. Travelers should always carry up-to-date road maps to check the accuracy of GPS directions.
DO NOT DEPEND ONLY ON YOUR VEHICLE GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM.
Drivers blindly following GPS directions have died of thirst and heat in the desert. Others have died trying to follow GPS directions to drive from an island to the mainland, even though there was no bridge. A North Carolina man died after being led by GPS to cross a bridge that had been out for 9 years.
Some have been taken on inappropriate back roads where they ended up getting stuck and were in bad shape before they were eventually located after searchers looked for them for days.
One story I like was the elderly woman in Belgium who tried to use GPS to guide her to her home, 90 miles away, but instead drove hundreds of miles to Zagreb, only realizing her mistake when she noticed the street signs were in Croatian. Having to stop to fill up with gas several times for the 90 mile trip did not register as a problem.
A personal example is from a trip to the Oregon coast. This was in the early days of GPS, before iPhones were common. We booked reservations at a restaurant across the bay from the small town we were in. The GPS in our rental car insisted that we must drive straight across the bay. It re-directed us that way multiple times as I ignored it. I finally turned it off, since it seemed determined to drown us.
A 2025 study examined how blindly following GPS directions can lead to dangerous, and sometimes fatal navigation errors. This study identified 52 fatalities and a number of serious injuries.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Online dependent
But the reports of people dying or being injured by following their GPS directions causes me concerns. Granted, some are understandable. Like in a storm after dark and you can’t see an unmarked bridge out until too late. But in general, it seems an outgrowth of the total dependence and unquestioning belief people now have on their mobile technology.
Statistics gathered in 2025 say Americans check their phone nearly 200 times a day. And they spend over 5 hours on it a day. 40% of people surveyed say they use their phones on a date. Nearly 30% report using their phone in the car. When I drive home tonight, I will see several people using their phone while driving, even though it is illegal in my state.
Technology is not bad. Being dependent on it to the exclusion of thinking, and relationships, and what is going on in “real life”, is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Use your head
The part of Death by GPS I can’t understand is, why did people trust what the computer said more than the evidence they could see? If the GPS says drive across the ocean when there is no bridge, doesn’t that cause a pause for reflection? If the GPS is taking you on a “shortcut” that is turning into a Jeep road, doesn’t it seem advisable to turn around and find another route? When it takes you on a road that would probably be good, except it is covered with a foot of unplowed snow, shouldn’t you decline?
This is a topic of scientific study called Automation Bias. It is “the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct.”
Do not be a robot controlled by your GPS. You are a thinking, sensing, feeling human being. You are the one driving the car. That makes you the responsible one. Accept the GPS input as suggestions that you are free to ignore.
Before phones we had to think and learn to use tools like maps. Humans have not evolved away from being able to think. Not yet.
Do you want your obituary to say: “He died following his GPS, even though all the evidence was to turn around.”
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Mindfulness
From the point of view of photography and living a rich life, I believe mindlessly following GPS has other dangers besides serious injury. I have not seen a study, but from my experience, I believe that when we are being directed by GPS, we tend to narrow our focus to the road right around us. We become mostly oblivious to anything that is not interfering with our driving. We virtually become a robot being driven by GPS.
In a lot of my writing, I preach being mindful. Not is a mystical Zen sense but just paying attention. Being aware of what is going on around you. Quieting your mind and being receptive to what is there. Seeing things that do not register with most people.
This can be challenging going down the road at 70 mph, but it is not impossible. I often see something that might be interesting, but it takes a few seconds for it to register with my conscious mind, and I turn around to go back to see it. I do not have to contend with the GPS sternly telling me to “return to route”, because it is not on.
The routes I take are the ones I choose. If I want to wander off on a side trip, I do. My maps are showing me an overview of where I am and what options I have to get to the destination I want. My path is often not direct, but it is usually interesting.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Take back control of your life
The author Robert Heinlein once said:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. — Specialization is for insects.
I would add to that read a map and be able to look around and decide the GPS is getting you in trouble.
Technology should help us fulfill our goals and lead a better life, not turn us into mindless robots.
People are starting to see danger in letting AI run unchecked, but other technologies are equally sapping our responsibility. Resist. Defend your humanity. One small rebellion is to use maps for navigation on your next trip. Spend some time studying the map to see all the roads and towns, rivers and mountains. View what you see as an invitation for exploration. It is exciting to spread a map out in front of you and consider all the possibilities ahead.
I have convinced a few friends to try avoiding freeways and staying on secondary roads. So far, they say they like it better. It is slower-paced and they discover charming small towns. Perhaps they are just being kind, but I know it works for me. Add that to your travel plans.
But more important, take back responsibility for your life and for your attention. Retain control of your route. Recognize danger when you see it and don’t be afraid to change plans. Be the one to exercise judgment. And always look at everything. around you as a potential photo opportunity.
You’re an artist, not a machine being controlled by GPS. As a photographer, death by GPS, to me, means it makes me miss the awe and wonder all around me for the sake of being guided along the shortest and fastest route to my next destination. Emerson was right when he said, “It’s not the destination, It”s the journey.”
Get a map. 😊
Afterword
I spoke strongly to make a point. I recognize that I am presenting my personal position and preferences. You have no reason to adopt them, other than I can speak from long experience.
In summary, my points are:
- Blindly following GPS can be dangerous
- Maps are a tool for exploring. GPS is for getting to a destination.
- Mindfulness is important to photographers. GPS tends to block mindfulness.
September 23, 2026
Documentary Shots
Documentary shots, or record shots, are something I have avoided for a long time. There came a point where I did not consider them “art”, and therefore, not interesting. I have changed some.
Documentary shots
Documentary shots record a place or event or person. They can be excellent images by themselves. If I go to an iconic location, I probably shoot a few frames of it, just to remember it. Likewise, when I am traveling, I often shoot some images of a new place I haven’t seen before. Again, just to remember it. I have no thought of putting them in my portfolio. And when we shoot pictures of family or events, likewise, they are for the memory.
Sometimes I will shoot these with my phone, since they are not “serious” images. I may put careful consideration into the framing and exposure and composition, but they are not intended to be published.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Art?
These are second class images to me because they are records of something rather than an interpretation of it.
I consider that most of my work in at least the first 20 years of my photographic journey was record shots. We would go to some great location in Colorado, and I would have to photograph it all. The sweep of the mountains, the ruggedness of a Jeep road, mountain waterfalls and streams. All well exposed and sharp, but really just “I was here; look what I saw” shots. Mostly uninteresting, from an artistic point of view.
The term “record shot” became synonymous to me as boring and not artistic. That was probably an overreaction.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Epiphany
Recently I had a mild epiphany. I have been studying American Civil War history lately. Somewhere along the way I realized that there is a wealth of photographs from the era. They are very impactful when they appear in a video or in a book to supplement the historical narrative.
It shows the people, the locations, and, sometimes, the horrible aftermath of battles. This is straight documentary photography. The equipment was large and the film speed was very slow, so they could only do tripod shots of people or landscapes. Things that sit very still. But I was seeing reality 160 years ago. That is impactful.
There was no consideration of AI fakes. They had little opportunity to be overtly dishonest. Of course, there are always the decisions of what is shot and what isn’t, where the camera is placed, and what is excluded. Those design elements were part of photography then as they are now.
But the hardy photographers back then knew they had an opportunity that never existed before to capture scenes of this war. It looks, from the images I have seen, like they were trying to be brutally honest. I believe this was the first time a war was extensively documented on film.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Context
This got me rethinking record shots. Although none of the images I have seen would win any prizes today based on their composition or artistry, they are valuable evidence of what happened. They are records of history.
Being able to see portraits of Lincoln and Grant and Lee and Jackson and other leading figures of the time makes them much more real. Seeing Lincoln at Gettysburg just a couple of days after the battle is powerful. Images of the battlefields at the time helps understand how the terrain contributed to the battle plans. And a picture of the aftermath of a battle captures the devastating destruction and loss of life and suffering better than a simple narrative can.
Did these photographs become good just because they are old? That’s partially it. But it is more than just age. They became more valuable because they are records of scenes that are gone. They could not be taken now.
These old photos bring us realities of people and places and events that are past and can never be again. That makes them unique and valuable historical documents.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Eugène Atget
I was also reminded of a photographer I heard about one time named Eugène Atget. He photographed Paris street scenes and architecture in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. It was a time of great change, and he recorded scenes that were disappearing.
Here is an example of one of his images in Paris:
Storefront of Little Bacchus, rue Saint-Louis-en-I’Ile, Paris (1901). By Eugène Atget from Wikimedia Commons(Public Domain).
He was virtually unknown during his life. An American photographer, Berenice Abbott bought thousands of prints from Atget’s estate after his death. She exhibited them and built recognition and appreciation for his work.
After his death, Atget’s style influenced the American realist/documentarian movement of the 1930s and 1940s. He even became associated with the surrealist movement. Man Ray even used one of his photographs as a cover image for the surrealist magazine la Révolution surréaliste. Art galleries in the USA also paired Atget’s photos with surrealist art in exhibitions.
C.S. Voll, in a Medium article, says “He had been so immersed in his project to document Paris that he hadn’t been aware of how avant-garde the images were at that moment.”
Good idea
These have got me to thinking about the history I have seen and the historical documentation I have done. Cities grow and spread. Wheat fields are permanently destroyed by housing development. Climate change alters the landscape. Buildings are torn down and new ones built. Companies I have worked for no longer exist. Many people I have known are dead now. Opportunities that will never happen again. How many pictures do you have in your files that could not be taken now?
Is there value in the records of these happenings? There could be. For ourselves, if for nothing else.
I have decided to embrace “record shots”, shoot more of them, and keep them. I have witnessed many changes in my life. Some of them I have photographed. I wish I had shot more of them. While I do not expect any of these to make me famous or to start new art movements, I believe they have value.
Documentary shots are not necessarily second class to art. They are a different photographic expression. My primary intent is fine art images, but I now see documentary images as a valid and useful thing to do. Some of them can be art, too.
September 18, 2026