Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 221196" data-attributes="member: 9240">I'd even be willing to shorten that to read, &quot;The truth in photography, to me, is not to purposefully mislead my viewer.&quot;&nbsp; This allows me to incorporate outside images, provided I am up front about their use.&nbsp; If it's a single capture, it stands on its own.&nbsp; If it's any type of composite or manipulation of what was and wasn't in the viewfinder at the time, then it needs to be stated as such.&nbsp; Even when it's an in-camera multiple exposure - at least for me.This is the crux of it.&nbsp; &quot;Photograph&quot; is far too unspecific a term and allows for lots of ambiguity regarding how it was created, particularly in the digital realm.&nbsp; I've taken to using &quot;capture&quot; to refer to anything that involves a single image with no overt manipulation.&nbsp; In other words, do as much as you like with the available light information and cropping, including the removal of noise, dust, and even ancillary objects in the image such as garbage on the ground, power lines and the casual human in the background, but do not manipulate perspective or proximity of objects, and do not add anything to the image that was not in the original capture or move it from one location to another (ie. don't move the moon from the left side of the image to the right).&nbsp; I believe anything in the realm of &quot;photojournalism&quot; must fall under within these parameters unless it's a purposefully stated and explicit manipulation.Anything else is not a &quot;capture&quot; and can fall in a variety of other categories under the realm of &quot;photograph&quot; and I have no issues with them whatsoever - provided you don't tell me it's a &quot;capture&quot;.&nbsp; They are all valid expressions of the photographer, and provided they are not presented as if taken in a single capture I would hold them as &quot;truthful&quot;, even if they may leave the viewer wondering just how such an image was captured.&nbsp; It's only deception if you tell them it's one thing when it's not, not if they believe it on their own - that's deceptive, and I am more than OK with that in art photography.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 221196, member: 9240"] I'd even be willing to shorten that to read, "The truth in photography, to me, is not to purposefully mislead my viewer." This allows me to incorporate outside images, provided I am up front about their use. If it's a single capture, it stands on its own. If it's any type of composite or manipulation of what was and wasn't in the viewfinder at the time, then it needs to be stated as such. Even when it's an in-camera multiple exposure - at least for me. This is the crux of it. "Photograph" is far too unspecific a term and allows for lots of ambiguity regarding how it was created, particularly in the digital realm. I've taken to using "capture" to refer to anything that involves a single image with no overt manipulation. In other words, do as much as you like with the available light information and cropping, including the removal of noise, dust, and even ancillary objects in the image such as garbage on the ground, power lines and the casual human in the background, but do not manipulate perspective or proximity of objects, and do not add anything to the image that was not in the original capture or move it from one location to another (ie. don't move the moon from the left side of the image to the right). I believe anything in the realm of "photojournalism" must fall under within these parameters unless it's a purposefully stated and explicit manipulation. Anything else is not a "capture" and can fall in a variety of other categories under the realm of "photograph" and I have no issues with them whatsoever - provided you don't tell me it's a "capture". They are all valid expressions of the photographer, and provided they are not presented as if taken in a single capture I would hold them as "truthful", even if they may leave the viewer wondering just how such an image was [I]captured[/I]. It's only [I]deception[/I] if you tell them it's one thing when it's not, not if they believe it on their own - that's [I]deceptive[/I], and I am more than OK with that in art photography. [/QUOTE]

Verification