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
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
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="Browncoat" data-source="post: 218985" data-attributes="member: 1061"><p>The perennial what is "real" photography debate continues to rage on. Photo manipulation has existed for nearly as long as the craft itself, so I really see no need to continue to rehash it. Editing has become far easier and widespread in the digital age, but that doesn't make it any more taboo or controversial than it ever was. </p><p></p><p>We all have our own personal opinions as to how much is too much, or how far is too far to stretch the "truth". Frankly, if photography were limited to merely reproducing an exact copy of what is in front of the lens, it would be pretty boring. We've all witnessed a sunset, a flower, a little girl, or a man on the street. What we haven't witnessed is <strong>how the artist sees it</strong>. THAT is what makes photography special.</p><p></p><p>We need to rid ourselves of this manifesto that photography has to be our own self-inflicted definition of "real" or "pure". Ask 100 photographers to take a photo of the same scene and you're going to get 100 different submissions. A good majority will be similar: they'll obey the rule of 3rds and perspective, and take a textbook style photograph. But the ones that are unique will always garner the most attention. The ones who dare to stand outside the box.</p><p></p><p>Everyone longs to be where the wild things are.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 218985, member: 1061"] The perennial what is "real" photography debate continues to rage on. Photo manipulation has existed for nearly as long as the craft itself, so I really see no need to continue to rehash it. Editing has become far easier and widespread in the digital age, but that doesn't make it any more taboo or controversial than it ever was. We all have our own personal opinions as to how much is too much, or how far is too far to stretch the "truth". Frankly, if photography were limited to merely reproducing an exact copy of what is in front of the lens, it would be pretty boring. We've all witnessed a sunset, a flower, a little girl, or a man on the street. What we haven't witnessed is [B]how the artist sees it[/B]. THAT is what makes photography special. We need to rid ourselves of this manifesto that photography has to be our own self-inflicted definition of "real" or "pure". Ask 100 photographers to take a photo of the same scene and you're going to get 100 different submissions. A good majority will be similar: they'll obey the rule of 3rds and perspective, and take a textbook style photograph. But the ones that are unique will always garner the most attention. The ones who dare to stand outside the box. Everyone longs to be where the wild things are. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
Top