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: 221198" data-attributes="member: 1061"><p>To what end? What purpose would it serve to make such distinction?</p><p></p><p>You're following the same logic that has plagued social classes for generations. The Nazis forced Jews to sew a yellow star or triangle into their clothing so that they could be distinguished from others. Other "non conformists" were also so labeled: criminals, homosexuals, political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses. That is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but it illustrates the point: Most classification systems are designed to elevate the status of one at the expense of the other. </p><p></p><p>Why would this be important to you? So that you can easily dismiss a photograph as "not real" or of lesser quality or significance because it was altered? ALL photography is manipulated. Be it by the chemicals of film or how different software interprets data, none if it is a 100% accurate reproduction of what was in front of the lens. It's all data, at its core, just binary code. A series of zeros and ones:</p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'courier new'">010010010001110101</span> could be a Word document</p><p><span style="font-family: 'courier new'">100101011001010000</span> could be a photograph of a waterfall</p><p></p><p>Photographers need to stop proclaiming SOOC as if it were a badge of honor. I've yet to see any straight out of camera image that truly impressed me. This purist vs. digital debate continues to be nothing more than a baseless means for photographers claim that in-camera technical prowess trumps artistic interpretation and creativity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 221198, member: 1061"] To what end? What purpose would it serve to make such distinction? You're following the same logic that has plagued social classes for generations. The Nazis forced Jews to sew a yellow star or triangle into their clothing so that they could be distinguished from others. Other "non conformists" were also so labeled: criminals, homosexuals, political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses. That is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but it illustrates the point: Most classification systems are designed to elevate the status of one at the expense of the other. Why would this be important to you? So that you can easily dismiss a photograph as "not real" or of lesser quality or significance because it was altered? ALL photography is manipulated. Be it by the chemicals of film or how different software interprets data, none if it is a 100% accurate reproduction of what was in front of the lens. It's all data, at its core, just binary code. A series of zeros and ones: [FONT=courier new]010010010001110101[/FONT] could be a Word document [FONT=courier new]100101011001010000[/FONT] could be a photograph of a waterfall Photographers need to stop proclaiming SOOC as if it were a badge of honor. I've yet to see any straight out of camera image that truly impressed me. This purist vs. digital debate continues to be nothing more than a baseless means for photographers claim that in-camera technical prowess trumps artistic interpretation and creativity. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
Top
