| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4435 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Well didn't Ansel Adams use a tripod? I'm told that's cheating...
Where do we stop?
Studio lights? Reflectors? Flash? Filters?
I think the only true was it to BE THERE! LOL
Its a valid question...at what point does 'manipulation' of the scene start.
(Not sure even the most devout purist would condem a tripod as the devil's spawn.
)But using fill in flash/reflectors.... adjusting exposure selectively in the darkroom .....doing the same in photoshop, to me are all the same.
Its just optimising the tonal range of the image to better reflect what the eye sees as opposed to what the limitations of the film/senor capture.
Taking this argument further...
What is the difference between selective cropping in the darkroom (we have all done it to better frame the subject and exclude distacting background detail we missed when shooting!) and cloning/airbrushing distracting detail from a photo?
Personally I draw the line here.....
After this there are all manner of manipulative 'degrees' but they are all fake 'photos'. Nothing wrong with that ...its artistic license.
Its ok to change colours and add items not in the original scene for specific reasons but these cannot be regarded 'as seen'...just like most paintings!
I include IR shots in this category.
Whether done in camera or in photoshop they are distortions of the observed scene. Just as adding ANY filter on the front of the camera (with the possible exception of polarisers, NDs and haze filters???) is a distortion of the real scene.
To this end I have always drawn (at least) a descriptive distinction between photos and images. Maybe semantics, but we capture photos ...and create images.
my 2 cents.
Last edited on Tue Apr 30th, 2013 06:38 by Eric
____________________
Eric