A Commentary on Photo Legitimacy

DelK wrote:

If your purpose is to comment within the historical context of photography, you need to consider that historical context. I suspect the vast majority of film photographers would agree to most of the following:,1. Documentry, photo-journalistic, and forensic photography should not be modified to change to mislead or bias the viewer with respect to the actual scene. (But do not make the common error that forensic photos must not be adjusted; all photos require adjustment in processing, and forensic photos do not stand on their own, there must be testimony of a witness or expert and this testimony is open to contradiction in court. The photo does not testify.)

2. Fine art photos reflect the interpretation and intent of the artist, which may include manipulation.

3. Advertising, product, fashion, food, even portrait photographs reflect the interpretation and outlook of the photographer in consideration of the opinion desired in the viewer. Manipulation is part of this process.

I could continue, but I don't believe it is necessary. Manipulation is part of photography and always has been. Nothing has changed recently but the tools of manipulation and distribution.

If your purpose is to consider digital photography without considering the historical context, then this is a social question, not a photographic one, and you should ask it in social media rather than here. Without the historical context, this is a question for the crowd, not the specialist.

--
DelK
community photographer
Current project: http://clemsonphotos.org