gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

There is a discussion going on in another thread about digital enhancements vs reality, and the OP takes a strong position against any enhancements unless one marks the photo as such. His position is that a real photograph only represents 'the truth'.

I know this topic has been argued ad nauseam, but as I was ruminating over the subject while sipping on a glass of Merlot, it occurred to me that the big question might be: What is the TRUTH? Is it what we actually SEE with our eyes? If that's the case, then WHOSE EYES - because we each see things a little differently.

I don't think there's ever been a photograph taken that produced a replication of EXACTLY what was there. The topic itself, if allowed to run amok, could turn out to be something like 'how vast is the Universe', but I'm tossing it out there because this group seems to have some deep thinkers who probe depths into which I am unable to go. :)

Shutter Bugger

Apart from photo journalism, I'm all for "enhancements".

This "photo" by Belgian Photographer, Koen Demuynck
says it for me.

(Download)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You cannot handle the truth.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

It is an endless argument, my friend. Though I seldom dabble in totally unrealistic renditions of a photo, I admire various types of artwork created from photographs, and intend to learn more about how to do it. Everyone must find his/her own way with this question, and no one should do more to a photograph than they feel comfortable with, but no one should do LESS just because of someone else's opinion.

I will forever defend the right of anyone to use their camera and software, which they paid for, to do whatever editing of their photos they wish, whether the end result is appealing to me or not.

The argument that only what the camera captures is "real" and everything else is "fake" is spurious. The software in cameras nowadays can be asked to do many of the things software in computers does, albeit on a tiny screen that is hard to use for editing.

My camera has a feature called key line that creates a strange cartoon-like image with posterized colors. It is far more removed from reality than the same image run through a Topaz art filter. Is either reality? No but perhaps they are art. Is an image with a strong ND filter used to turn running water into a misty blur reality? No, water does not really look like that- but it may "feel" like that. Is that nice starburst I captured in-camera at Mesa Arch at sunrise with a tiny aperture "real"? Not really, I didn't see it with my eyes but I knew I could get it with a particular setting and composition. Is a panned image shot to show a sharp cyclist against a blurred background more "real" than one where the background is blurred in software? No, not on a perceptual basis.

IMHO we worry and argue too much about these things, and try too hard to impose our opinions on others as value judgements. Why not just do what you want, and refrain from judging others for what they do, so long as they are not misrepresenting their actions. And if I try to tell someone that starburst was really there, somebody ought to call me on it.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

"IMHO we worry and argue too much about these things, and try too hard to impose our opinions on others as value judgements. Why not just do what you want, and refrain from judging others for what they do, so long as they are not misrepresenting their actions. And if I try to tell someone that starburst was really there, somebody ought to call me on it."

A-men, Sister; A-men!

if anyone makes the leap of accepting conversion of a three-dimensional anything to a two-dimensional anything, all else is "small potatoes" !

And if "small potatoes" are all they can argue, then they've too much time on their hands (IMNSHO)

Dave

gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

Well........... the OTHER thread to which I referred in my original post is now on its' 11th page and climbing. I knew I'd come to the right place. Three posts - all in consensus, and the issue is resolved. If you want to associate with DEEP, DEEP thinkers, this is the place to be.
:>)

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If you're attempting to present truth through captured imagery, shooting video will get you closer to this goal than still photography ever could. Better yet, video with variable, rapid-changing aperture and continuous focusing, as that is how are eyes see the world around us. Our eyes are also constantly changing the perceived "exposure", dictated by the very object we are paying attention to at any given moment. (In a way, HDR photography is a rough attempt to mimmic this changing level of exposure that our eyes perform automatically, by similtaneously brightening shadows and darkening bright areas.)

What I'm trying to say is, from the very onset the photographic still image is not really how are eyes see.

jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

When I used to work in courtrooms I noted that photographs were often introduced into evidence. They were used to show spatial relationships at crime scenes, sight lines, the topography of a given location and other such things. If it had come to light that an image had been altered, a judge would have excluded that image from the evidence and ordered the jury to disregard it. That seemed reasonable to everyone because of the kind of reality that photographs were supposed depict in court cases.

However, art is concerned with a different kind of reality. Art deals in the realm of emotions. In that area, capturing the exact spatial relationship of objects is less important than stimulating internal reactions to the arrangement of those objects. Art is not so much a picture of the outside world as it is a way of stimulating viewers to contemplate their internal emotional realities.

My suggestion for forensic photographers is that they should never alter photographs.

My suggestion for artists is that they should enjoy another glass of Merlot and have fun.

My suggestion for those who spend 11 pages trying to push art into rigid and arbitrary definitional containers is that they should enjoy several glasses of Merlot and loosen up a little.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Words of wisdom!

(For reasons of my own personality issues, I always seem to feel compelled to engage in those 11-page ordeals to try to open the container a bit in case some poor soul is caught in it and trying to get out. Once a gentleman PM'd me and told me I had been successful! Worth it I guess)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Ahhh photography .... post processing .... and truth and lies .....
Lies is a strong word.

And before post processing should even be considered we should consider the truth of how photos have always been manipulated.

Images are manipulated by our choice of lens and viewpoint.
If I use a fisheye or an ultrawide, I can make that 1 pound trout you caught look like it is twice the size.
With lens choice I can make a puddle look like a small lake.
I can make a tree that is 100 feet away look like it is just behind you, or 1/2 a mile away.
I can make mountains grow, or shrink.
I can elongate the nose of a car or a dog. I can give someone a thin face or a round one.

With the exposure triangle and viewpoint, I can make a single poppy stand out from a field of millions, or I can make a person in a gorilla costume blend into the nothingness of the crowd.
I can blur a wind chopped lake into a smooth serene reflection.
I can freeze a hummingbirds wingbeat so that I can count the individual feathers.
I can turn night into day.
I can turn a mediocre sunset into a vibrant red sky.
I can turn a brilliant blue sky into boring white.
I can freeze a racehorse in midstride or have his legs a whirling flurry of movement.
I can take the busiest intersection in the world and make it devoid of traffic.
I can turn a busy crowded tourist mecca into a peaceful serene place.
I can make buildings lean, I can make saplings into giant trees.
I can make garbage and mess disappear, or I can make it take over a scene altogether.

These are all the truth.
These are all lies.
These are the skills of the photographer.

And I haven't even downloaded the image yet.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Ironically enough, the person demanding "reality" is seriously out of touch with reality. Using a flash would not be "the truth," I guess. Cropping would be out of bounds. Forget ETTR. B&W? Not "the truth," since reality is, after all, in color.

Mike

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

I've heard pretty much exactly the same thing said many times and in many ways...but never with such absolute poetic beauty.,
Incredibly well said!
Oughta be rendered in fine calligraphy and framed!

Dave

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Brilliant.

Mike

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Beautifully written and impossible to argue with!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Thank you everyone for your very kind words.