Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,368
Re: Photo-manipulations vs. photography

misterodd wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

misterodd wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Photo manipulations imply distorting reality which is not photography. Things like blue screening and cutting objects out of a scene are distortions of reality and thus not photography.

I completely understanding your line of thought and it's a fair definition

relatively consistent with the opinions of many individuals and groups, photographers and non-photographers, alike.

In a broader sense, perhaps a socio-philosophical sense, however, even "photography" is inherently "manipulative" as it provides no context, especially historical context.

It is not a socio-philosophical sense, but in a the way reality works, sense,

I think you did not understand what I wrote.

And I am pretty sure you did not undestand my reply.

We are talking about how a photo can be manipulated intentionally or otherwise and what would constitute this manipulation. The person I replied to provided an overt case of manipulation. I provided one that was less so. When a critique is carried out, a set of criteria is required to judge and make distinctions.

All photographs are manipulations, no philosophy necessary. Philosophy come in further down the road when we begin to discuss what manipulation changes definition.

An image is one signifier among an inexhaustible many and can fall prey to the machinations of those who do not use photography to enlighten or edify or inspire others.

What? Photography is not meant the enlighten, edify or inspire, it is making images by recording light. It can be used to enlighten, edify or inspire or whatever motive the maker and/or viewer wants. But that is not its purpose.

Photography can be used to enlighten, edify, or inspire others, among many things. I never made the claim that photography was only ever used for these ends.

Your phrasing certainly implies it.

You wrote that photography is "making images by recording light." I suppose this was your definition of the purpose of photography. But this is not a definition of the purpose. It is only an ever-so-brief explanation of how photography works, in a technical sense.

Photography has no purpose, photography is a process.

Photographers have purpose.

And, of course, viewers can infer purpose.

I think you may have not fully comprehended the arguments in this exchange.

I understand just fine, but I do disagree.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow