Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Article About the Ever Popular Image Manipulation Debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 457355" data-attributes="member: 13090"><p>That's not quite accurate. The Second Noble Truth, "All suffering stems from desire", I think, is what you are probably referring to and is one of the Four Noble Truths: The Truth of Suffering, The Truth of the Cause of Suffering, The Truth of the End of Suffering and The Truth of the Path Leading to the End of Suffering. </p><p></p><p>Coming to understand the Four Noble Truth's is one step that ultimately leads to Enlightenment and True Happiness; versus the temporal and temporary happiness of the ego.</p><p></p><p>*assumes full Lotus Position*</p><p></p><p>As for the topic of photo manipulation it seems to me it's much like the difference between nudity in art versus pornography: I don't think we can clearly define where one leaves off and the other begins but I think most of us feel we know both art and pornography when we see it.</p><p></p><p>It's true that all photos are "manipulated" in some way, that's pretty much the nature of photography, but I don't think that's the bone of contention in this particular argument. I feel safe in saying balancing color in a RAW file is an acceptable practice, or converting an image to black and white. For me, the difference lies in something intangible but important, and I think it is a factor often overlooked: Intent. </p><p></p><p>Is the intention of the manipulation to <em>enhance</em> what is, or is the intention of the manipulation to <em>create</em> something that is not? If I want to record a moment and I enhance the colors and add a vignette to "manipulate" the viewers impression of what really was, I guess I see that as being One Thing. If I take a photo and then add things that were not there in reality at the time of the photo and my intention is to create a piece art, that's fine too but do I think of if differently; this is Another Thing Entirely. It's not better or worse, but different and different in an important sort of way. Some people take a photo and the photo itself IS the artwork. Some people take a photo and that photo becomes the <em>foundation</em> for a piece of digital art. Both will be manipulated in some way, yes; too me that's not really the point. The point, again, is intent. </p><p></p><p>Is your intent to show me what was and what you saw, or is it your intent to show me what could be, or what you saw in your Mind's Eye? </p><p></p><p>I like and appreciate both approaches. I guess what I don't like is presenting the latter as the former.</p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">.....</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 457355, member: 13090"] That's not quite accurate. The Second Noble Truth, "All suffering stems from desire", I think, is what you are probably referring to and is one of the Four Noble Truths: The Truth of Suffering, The Truth of the Cause of Suffering, The Truth of the End of Suffering and The Truth of the Path Leading to the End of Suffering. Coming to understand the Four Noble Truth's is one step that ultimately leads to Enlightenment and True Happiness; versus the temporal and temporary happiness of the ego. *assumes full Lotus Position* As for the topic of photo manipulation it seems to me it's much like the difference between nudity in art versus pornography: I don't think we can clearly define where one leaves off and the other begins but I think most of us feel we know both art and pornography when we see it. It's true that all photos are "manipulated" in some way, that's pretty much the nature of photography, but I don't think that's the bone of contention in this particular argument. I feel safe in saying balancing color in a RAW file is an acceptable practice, or converting an image to black and white. For me, the difference lies in something intangible but important, and I think it is a factor often overlooked: Intent. Is the intention of the manipulation to [I]enhance[/I] what is, or is the intention of the manipulation to [I]create[/I] something that is not? If I want to record a moment and I enhance the colors and add a vignette to "manipulate" the viewers impression of what really was, I guess I see that as being One Thing. If I take a photo and then add things that were not there in reality at the time of the photo and my intention is to create a piece art, that's fine too but do I think of if differently; this is Another Thing Entirely. It's not better or worse, but different and different in an important sort of way. Some people take a photo and the photo itself IS the artwork. Some people take a photo and that photo becomes the [I]foundation[/I] for a piece of digital art. Both will be manipulated in some way, yes; too me that's not really the point. The point, again, is intent. Is your intent to show me what was and what you saw, or is it your intent to show me what could be, or what you saw in your Mind's Eye? I like and appreciate both approaches. I guess what I don't like is presenting the latter as the former. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"].....[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Article About the Ever Popular Image Manipulation Debate
Top