Not digitally manipulated, take 2

You might remember an earlier post, Not Digitally Manipulated, in which I discussed a quote from a newspaper review of the Sam Haskins exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery.

The reviewer said: “but none of the images is manipulated, digitally or otherwise”. I went on to discuss this and give my views.

However, I just came across this question and answer in an interview with Sam Haskins, posted on the pop photo website. Sam is being interviewed about the re-issued book, Cowboy Kate and Other Stories.

Didn't you do the restoration digitally?
"The images were printed from digital files, retouched in Photoshop. I scanned the original negatives on an Imacon scanner. And I feel I get better images out of old transparencies than I ever managed before in a wet darkroom. Because in one photo, you can have 20 areas each with a different contrast ratio. You can tweak the whole image bit by bit like you could never do in a darkroom. And listen, to stand all day in a stinking darkroom is not my idea of fun! I'd rather sit in a nice easy chair in front of a monitor."

So, good old Sam scanned the images using a good quality scanner and then retouched and cleaned up the images in Photoshop to get the most out of each one.

I knew Sam wasn’t a wanker.

It is about getting the most out of each shot, not about being able to boast about some form of imagined purity. Why put artificial restrictions on creativity?