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="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 457376" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>Both are manipulations, but there are many that would argue that additive manipulation is more deceptive than reductive. If the justification is creating art then they are the same, if it's representing truth then not so much.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The "truth" represented is not necessarily relative to the naked eye but the <em>eye that is behind the shutter</em>. Any level of stopped motion is a variation of what the brain interprets in the moment through what is seen by the eye, not to mention that most of us have binocular vision and perceive depth and spacial orientation far differently in our minds than in a photo. The photo is an interpretation in time - instantaneously short or protractively long - of the constant motion we are fed by our eyes, and we instinctively look to deconstruct that back to "reality" when we see it. Our (in)ability to do that with an image is generally the basis by which we judge the truthfulness of it. Our expectation is what then chooses to bless or damn that "truth".</p><p></p><p>It's all in the eye of the beholder.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 457376, member: 9240"] Both are manipulations, but there are many that would argue that additive manipulation is more deceptive than reductive. If the justification is creating art then they are the same, if it's representing truth then not so much. The "truth" represented is not necessarily relative to the naked eye but the [I]eye that is behind the shutter[/I]. Any level of stopped motion is a variation of what the brain interprets in the moment through what is seen by the eye, not to mention that most of us have binocular vision and perceive depth and spacial orientation far differently in our minds than in a photo. The photo is an interpretation in time - instantaneously short or protractively long - of the constant motion we are fed by our eyes, and we instinctively look to deconstruct that back to "reality" when we see it. Our (in)ability to do that with an image is generally the basis by which we judge the truthfulness of it. Our expectation is what then chooses to bless or damn that "truth". It's all in the eye of the beholder. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Article About the Ever Popular Image Manipulation Debate
Top