Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Tag: photographic technology

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, maybe remove some distractions. 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, because I am presenting art to you, not documentary. 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. And not to her. 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 most of the 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 relatively 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
How I Use AI
I’m generally very anti-AI, but it is a huge, fast-moving field splintered in lots of directions. Not all are bad. This is a snapshot of how I use AI today.
Traditional argument against AI
The traditional argument against AI is that it takes over our creativity and allows automated generation of scenes. Yes, this is possible and it is being done every day.
For many, it is no longer necessary to locate or create an interesting subject to photograph. Just let the AI agent do it. If you want a purple elephant in that scene, just describe it to your friendly chat bot and it will quickly create several variations to select from. To me, this is fantasy illustration, not photography.
But I’m a photographer. My work is based on reality. Even if I create a fantasy composite, it is built from pieces that actually exist somewhere. Pieces I have found and collected just for this purpose. All of it is my original photography and the combination is my own creative work.
I sincerely believe that AI cannot think or feel. It has no soul. It cannot appreciate what it generates. By my somewhat biased definition, this invalidates it from being art.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
It’s just a technology
But let’s not forget that it is not a living entity and it is not magic. It is just technology. It is software running in a data center. The people who build it don’t understand how it works and why it does some of the things it does, but still, it is technology.
Almost any technology has the potential to help us in some positive way, if it is used appropriately. This is true from the printing press to nuclear energy to AI.
With AI, though, we are in a very immature early phase. Everybody is running around saying “Oh, look at this!”, without considering what it means or where it leads. AI is a large field. It is hard to make blanket statements about it.
The hype told you AI would change everything overnight. The reality is slower, messier, and far more expensive than anyone admitted.
The AI Coder, Medium
Photography technology history
Photography has progressed through several generations of technology changes without being destroyed.
The original hard-core photographers had to mix their chemicals, coat glass plates, expose them in their heavy 8×10 view cameras, then rush to their tent to develop them. You had to really want to do it.
But then coated film was developed. The field opened up to many more people. We could shoot all we wanted – all we could afford, anyway, drop them at the photo store, and get prints back in a few days. Small “walkabout” cameras like Leica exploited the new, smaller film and became hits. The. world was more convenient, film and lenses kept getting better, and things were generally pretty good. We no longer had to suffer to be a photographer.
But then someone (Kodak, as it turns out) came along and created digital cameras. No more film. No more waiting for prints. It started as a crude technology but quickly grew to dominate photography. It is all I use and I wouldn’t go back. I know for sure that I got the image and real-time histograms are something I would not give up. Even film purists would generally agree that digital has surpassed film in resolution. A side effect is that now everyone is a photographer, and photography tends to lose its identity as an art.
At every stage, the old-time purists declared that the new technology would ruin photography. Actually, it just kept getting better. I believe some parts of AI will be like this and some won’t.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
In camera
Unless you are shooting a manual camera, there is a lot of “AI-like” technology embedded in your camera. I’m referring to things that can take over creative decisions from the artist. Remember, AI is a large field. There are a lot of small, focused applications of the technology.
Going way back before AI was named, Nikon developed a multi-segment metering system, and its exposure system was “trained” using thousands of properly exposed images taken with the matrix. That is basically the definition of AI. At this point, matrix metering may be based on actual AI technology. I don’t know. It works very well and keeps getting better. I have trusted the Nikon matrix metering system for many years. But I monitor it, and if I disagree, I override it. This is a key.
Or look at the focusing systems in our cameras. They have grown to hundreds of sensors that can work singly or cooperatively together to achieve near perfect focus. I very rarely focus manually. Some of the systems can “look at” the entire scene and decide what the focus point should be. And some recognize eyes and focus on them. And some track moving objects and predict where to focus at the moment the shutter is pressed. These relieve the photographer of some tedious manual control that requires a lot of practice to get right.
I’m not necessarily saying this is literally AI, but that is a matter of definition. It is an example of technology that can automate manual work for us, allowing us to make the creative decisions. This is good technology. But it is important for a photographer to be vigilant and always ready to override the technology when it goes against our creative idea.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
In post-processing
Probably the main area where we would recognize AI being used is in post processing. Lightroom Classic and Photoshop are the main tools I am familiar with so that is all I will discuss. This is not a tutorial on using AI tools, so I will only point out some of the features I use.
One reason Lightroom Classic has almost completely replaced Photoshop for me is the ever more sophisticated masking tools. These allow me to manipulate images more precisely and the AI features save significant time in applying them.
Sky and subject masking have been around quite a while, but their algorithms are getting much better (AI training?). Have you used the new Landscape masking tool? It is a fast way to create several masks isolating various parts of a scene, like foliage or mountains or architecture.
Automatic people masking can be a real aide. It gives specific control to create individual masks for a wide set of features, down to selecting only the whites of the eyes.
Something I fought for a long time but am starting to warm up to is the distraction removal features. It occasionally does a fast and decent job of removing people. The reflection removal is occasionally awesome. And I have been known to take an image into Photoshop just to use its wire and cable removal tool.
I confess to very often using the Auto exposure correction button in Lightroom Classic. It gives a quick starting point. I always change the settings, maybe undo it completely, but I like to see what it thinks should be done. Often it will push the image in the direction I want to go.
Another one I have a love/hate relationship with is Healing. I don’t find that it works well in general, but occasionally it saves a lot of time.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Who is in charge?
Who is in the role of artist? That is the point of all of this. I only use targeted tools that I allow to operate on parts of my image under my supervision. When they work, they are significant time savers. For instance, using the sky selection tool saves me a lot of time consuming, non-creative work. I do not consider that it replaces any of my creative judgment. None of these do anything I could not do myself. They just do it faster, freeing me to spend more time making creative decisions.
Well, the reflection removal is something I probably could not do myself. Maybe that makes it too much AI incursion.
These are examples of the power of AI in post processing. The tool set seems to be getting better all the time, and I appreciate many of them. It is a welcome productivity boost.
But in all cases, I only use AI as a labor-saving device and a multiplier for my creative effort. It does grunt work faster than I can. I do not give it a prompt to create a purple elephant in my image. I will not allow it to create significant imagery itself. If I did not photograph it or create it, I will not use it.
Technology can be good, but it can run out of control. My position now is that AI is good if it can help me get my creative work done easier. But I keep a tight control on who is the creative artist and what is the tool.
The future?
This is a point in time report. The world of AI is large and fast moving. I can’t predict what will happen in a year or 2. Will I break down and start using generative AI, or will I stand my ground, or will photography as we know it disappear?
My guess is I will keep my current arms-length position but will enjoy lots of new AI-powered tools. It will be an interesting ride.
July 1, 2026
The Weakness of Photography
I love photography. It is my chosen art form. But photography has a weakness that weakens and cheapens it, in some people’s eye. Can it really be art?
Literal
We point our camera at a scene, press the shutter release, and it is recorded. Everything in the field of view is captured. We didn’t have to arrange it or decide what should be there. It is all scooped up.
Therefore, most photographs are straight views of literal scenes. Little thought and consideration went into it. There is trash and power lines we are expected to overlook. And that telephone pole growing out of the subject’s head: yeah, ignore that.
If we want to document a place or time, that can work. But we wouldn’t call that art.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Too easy
Along with that is just the fact that taking a photograph is too easy. Anyone with a phone can take a pretty good picture with no thought or effort. An amazing amount of computational science is applied in your phone to make it look good. And just like everyone else’s.
This is clearly seen in the trillions of photographs uploaded to social media and photo sites each year. And by the billions of hours of video uploaded to YouTube and TikTok. Everyone can do it, and they do.
If everyone can do it, it must not be special.
Too mechanical
And photography is criticized for being too mechanical. It seems more technology than art. People don’t need training to do it. Just Point and Shoot.
We capture a photograph in an instant. It can be sent anywhere in the world in milliseconds. We can paste it on social media for the world to see and comment on.
How many people shooting pictures on their phone are spending much time considering the artistic elements of the work? No, there is little to consider. Click the button. If you don’t like it, use the AI editing controls to make it good, or just shoot it again.
It’s just an automatically produced thing. It is no longer a picture; it is a commodity.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is photography worthless?
To me, who likes photography as art, that sounds very bleak. So, has photography become worthless?
I like to think not.
Photography is an extremely challenging art form that requires intense effort and years of practice. At least for me. And at that, I’m just getting somewhat competent at it. I don’t think I will ever consider that I have mastered it.
That sounds contradictory. Thoughtless image capture that anyone can do or difficult and thoughtful art. Obviously 2 different things. That’s where we go off track in the argument. It is not photography that is art or not, it is our intended purpose and expectation. Are we capturing an image for a utilitarian purpose or creating a piece of art?
The same tools and processes are used for both. That confuses things.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The difference
On the surface, it is hard to tell the difference between photography being done for art vs for utilitarian reasons. The subjects could be the same, the equipment could be the same, the locations could be the same.
If you watched the photographers work you would probably spot some differences, but not always. That is not a reliable indicator.
It may be overly simplistic, but I think the difference is what is going on in the photographer’s head. Their intent and purpose, the feeling and insight they bring to the scene, and their experience. It becomes art because there was an artist present, involved, responding, feeling, creating. This can transform a simple scene into art.
The subject
If we are creating for art, the depth of our involvement must become far more intense than a simple snapshot. One of the traps many people fall into is the consideration of the subject itself. Did you just capture the obvious shallow view of the subject, or does the image say something about our feeling or perception of the subject? Did we delve deeper and try to bring our something that is not obvious on the surface?
A representation of the subject is just that. What you see is what you get. But if we can bring our something different or new or insightful to challenge the viewer, the image could have staying power.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Composition
Most people walk up to a scene and snap it. An artist thinks about composition. About how the parts relate and are perceived. And about what to include and what to leave out.
Often the artist has no ability to re-arrange the scene, but they have freedom to change their position or to zoom in to parts of the whole. Small changes of location or framing can make huge changes in the visual effect.
If we are serious about photography, we know the basic principles of composition: placement on thirds, leading lines, visual weight, etc. How we use them while making an image depends on our personality and experience. I don’t have a checklist of composition rules with me. For me, it is more subconscious recognition of them. As in “there’s a potential leading line; can I exploit it; will it make the composition stronger?”
A well composed image will be seen as designed, intentional, crafted, and more whole.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Form
An artist will look at the same scene as anyone else and see interesting shapes and patterns. They are aware of textures and reflections and how the light is playing across the subject.
Sometimes form is the whole purpose of an image. This is especially common in black & white. One of the reasons for producing an image in black & white is to remove extraneous elements like color and immediate subject recognition, leaving the forms and tones as the focus.
Subtleties like this are not usually obvious to the snapshot shooter.
Gesture
This is a favorite of mine. Gesture is not just a certain movement. It is what shows the innate character of something. The great Jay Maisel is a huge proponent of the concept. He goes so far as to say:
It’s light, gesture, and color. It really doesn’t matter what you photograph.
Jay Maisel
That is, the subject is less important than capturing that thing or moment that shows its essence. Discovering the gesture can be hard, but it is worthwhile. We could take a picture of a thing, or we can look for something that shows what the thing does or feels or how it behaves. That gives it life.
Finding and capturing the gesture usually requires intense concentration and attention. You must approach it with the will to find it. But it is a process of the artist looking deeper and with more intent than the snapshot shooter.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Are photography’s problems solvable?
Yes, because it doesn’t actually have a problem. Photography is a wonderful practice and every bit as artistic as any of the other established art forms.
The fact that the vast majority of pictures are taken as snapshots/throwaway/selfies/travel memories does not invalidate that the medium can be used for artistic purposes. That would be like saying most people can’t write well, so writing is not valuable.
I use my phone to grab quick shots all the time: a sign with a name or telephone number I need, a part I need to find at the hardware store, something that amuses me, or my grandson. These serve exactly the purpose I want. Either a throwaway or a memory. Every day I also take my “real” camera with me and occasionally see something to shoot from an artistic viewpoint.
These are 2 different activities with completely different purposes. Neither invalidates the other. Both exist together and do not compete. The same technology is being used for different goals. It’s not the subject or the equipment or the location that separates them. It is the intent and skill of the photographer. And it is the desire of the artist to create.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is photography as an art going away?
As far as photography as art going away, I would claim the opposite. Since most pictures taken are mediocre, at best, when we come along with an image created with skill and an artistic style, it will get noticed. It will be obvious to most people that this is different and special.
The introduction of photography caused many painters to fear it would replace them. Instead, it freed them from a lot of routine and repetitive work, like basic portrait commissions, and allowed them to create. Impressionism and other artistic directions emerged. I believe we will see some of the same.
As photographers who are trying to lift our work above the base level, we should not be apologetic about photography or feel inferior. Our intent is to produce art. We should not price our work at giveaway prices because many people expect that. Look for a market that appreciates the difference.
You are an artist. You are creating things that are unique and special – aren’t you? If not, you will be swallowed up in the giant flood of ordinary and AI generated images.
June 11, 2026
Culling
I recently finished a major part of a large project to cull my “best” images. It was much harder than I thought. Culling is hard.
Why
More than once, I asked myself “why?”. I thought this would take me 2-3 weeks. It ended up taking 4 months.
Why in the world would I take on something like this voluntarily? I felt it was necessary to be honest with myself. This is a follow-up and expansion of a previous article on critiquing your own work.
I use a multi-layer “grading” system to promote my best work up the ladder. It has been in place for several years and it seemed time to do a reality check to see if I believed my system. It is too easy to rate a picture higher just because I like it without it being truly worthwhile.
And to be honest, there were a couple of concerns I wanted to check on. These are hard to express or admit, but I wanted to see if my recent work was as good as my earlier work and if my work, overall, was up to the standard I want for myself.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
How
My methodology was just to plow through it from beginning to end. I did not attempt to organize images by subject or style or anything. It is just a huge, roughly chronological list of my top-rated pictures.
My criterion is that any image in this top group meets my standards. I should be able to randomly select any one and I will be glad to hang it on my wall or enter it to a show. Of course, I don’t like each one equally. I have favorites. But any of this top group should be a very good representation of my work.
All the images are in a collection in my Lightroom Classic catalog. In general, the goal is to examine each image and keep or demote it. These are ones that have made it to the top of my list. In no case did I delete any pictures, except for a couple of cases of duplicates. Rejecting an image from my top category means demoting it a level, not removing it.
If things were actually that easy, it would have gone faster. The reality is that it is hard for me to keep from “improving” some of them. So, I occasionally take side trips into editing. I enjoy that, but it is a time sink.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What did I learn
I went back through nearly 20 years of images in my Lightroom catalog. I have used Lightroom since its beta release. It’s first production release was in 2007. That is quite a trip down memory lane.
I have not had time to do an intense analysis, buy here are some observations.
20 years ago, I was more active, willing to do more vigorous physical activity in any weather. I have slowed down (or gotten smarter). I still get out in a lot of weather, but fewer long back country treks.
Way back, I seem to have been a little more willing to shoot anything that was mildly interesting. Now I am older and more cynical and judgmental. I have lost some of the child-like wonder of the world. I am less likely to shoot if I don’t feel it will be a good picture. This is something I need to work on. Staying in a state of wonder is important to me.
Many of my oldest pictures are travel related. I still shoot a lot when traveling, and I like it, but I have improved my mindfulness and attention in everyday shooting near home. This is good.
My old pictures tend toward technical perfection and formal compositions. I have moved quite a way beyond that. For one thing, I’ve developed more taste for movement, both intentional camera movement and subject blurring. “Perfection” has a whole different meaning for me now. Abstraction is more common.
I’ve always had a “good eye” and the ability to isolate interesting events and creative compositions. It has gotten more refined with time. That is encouraging.
Many of the themes I used to shoot are still well represented in my newer work. I haven’t run off in wildly new directions. One thing I do note is that I seldom photograph people anymore. This is a shame, because I like a lot of what I did in the past. But times seem to have shifted, and I don’t want the potential hassles that can come with it anymore.
It is probably fair to say my older work showed more youthful enthusiasm while my newer work is more mature and investigative. I’m sure there are deeper insights that will come with more thought.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What’s next
If I was really going to do this rigorously, I guess I would create sub-collections of these surviving top images by topic: all landscapes, all architecture, all travel, etc. That way I could more closely compare the changes that have happened in the treatment of similar subjects over time. I probably won’t.
E.B. White said that “analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.” I think it would be like that for me if I did such a detailed analysis.
I’m not really that interested in the fine points of how I have changed. I will just note that it happened. The reality is that I wanted to sneak up on that question I was afraid to consider too openly: is my current work as good as my old work? With some reservations, I will say that the new is good.
What I do observe and mentioned before is that I have lost some of the child-like wonder and innocence that used to be there. I need to do more stupid, crazy, improbably things just to see what happens. Even if I’m pretty sure it won’t be a keeper. Just to see it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Was it worth it
It is harder to definitively say it was worth it. This took a lot of time. But yes, critically reviewing what I considered my best work over the last 20 years was worth it. Just renewing the memories was worth it.
I tried to be brutal in my screening, but I am surprised that I only “demoted” about 20% of my collection. The changes in the quality of my sensors and lenses over time is obvious. A surprise is that did not necessarily affect my perception of the quality of the images. When a jpg image taken with an old 6 MPix sensor and only a fair lens can hold its own next to one taken with a great lens on a 47 MPix sensor shooting RAW, that says it is something other than just technical perfection.
Expressing this indefinable quality still eludes me. I got some insight on the effect, but I cannot clearly put it in words. But I guess some insight is more than I had before.
I called this exercise culling. It turned out to be much more. I encourage you to do something like this as a self-check.
A parting observation
I just went through my entire collection of “good” images. I had to edit quite a few of them while I was at it. They just needed it. I couldn’t pass over them without it.
While going back through the collection to review them for this article, I had to edit some of them again. Even though I had just been through them.
This brings up something I have learned about myself over the years: an image is an opinion that changes with time. Even over the course of a few weeks, I can change my opinion. This is one reason prints are important. They freeze an opinion at a point in time.
May 20, 2026