Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
thenoilif Senior Member • Posts: 1,187
Re: A different plane of existence.

DenWil wrote:

thenoilif wrote:

I believe that a photo can be manipulated quite a bit so long as it is meant to give a complete representation of what the photographer felt and saw at that moment. A common and simple tactic to do this is black and white or images that are rendering in a dominant color.

There was another article about a photographer getting an award taken away because he edited a photo of an elephant and the ears got switched around. The sky was also likely changed out to give the image a more dramatic feel. Some argued that the background being changed alone should have also gotten the photographer disqualified but I feel that is fine if the change helped to re-create what the photographer perceived and felt at the time.

Perceived and felt? And if he perceived rainbows and a pot of gold...lol just drop them in in post? ...manipulating a photo in post to reflect your feelings is hilarious.

Good one.

For me, photography isn't just a 100% recreation of a scene because that is a very subjective thing.

No it is not. It is either in front of you or it isn't and I demand an accurate rendition of what I framed in my viewfinder. Whether it is worth photographing at all is what is subjective.

Light is tricky and our cameras are usually calibrated for art, not scientific accuracy. I tend to find that some people, with more of them being found on a gear site, tend to lean toward the belief that the cameras are calibrated for science.

My film and film cameras and now the digital equipment are all calibrated for accuracy = this much light generates this much recorded brightness and red looks red. Your cameras are obviously different.

I don’t think there is a camera, and definitely no film camera, that has scientific grade color meters or spectrometers inside them. You can buy them but cameras, as far as my knowledge, don’t come with this level of color control accuracy.

You also realize that everyone’s eyes see colors slightly different so your idea of red may not be the actual shade or tone of red that actually exists. Also, when you’re outside, there are all sorts of variables that dictate lighting and color that can change in an instant. So the red you see may never be reproduced again thus your rendering of that color would require the inclusion of scientific data to prove that yours is accurate. Lastly, your brain and the chemicals it produces to create the emotions you feel also effect how you perceive the world, this includes how you see colors and lighting.

It has nothing to do with being a gear person which I am not. I cannot do my job without replicable results from my equipment and equipment which was programmed to be artistic would never render the same thing twice. That is my choice to make not the gear's.

Again, you program your camera based on your preference. Like you say it’s your choice. As soon as you make personal choices you’re bringing doubt into the accuracy of the situation.

-- hide signature --

dw

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