Sirius Glass
Subscriber
I did not like it in 1839 either. Just because it can be done does not make it right. After all I could push someone off a cliff, but that would not make it right, even in 1839.
I did not like it in 1839 either. Just because it can be done does not make it right. After all I could push someone off a cliff, but that would not make it right, even in 1839.
I have no problem grasping your concept. APUG no longer exists, so neither does it's standard. Where do you draw the line on "reality"? Does spotting a cigarette butt out of a scene count? Does hand-coloring a violet sky which didn't exist cross a line? I don't see why photography should be held to a higher (or lower) standard than the other visual arts. It would make it a lesser art form, as it would remove creativity from the hands of the photographer, instead insisting on some truth which was really never there.I am holding photography to its OWN standard. It is also the APUG standard. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?
What standard is the photography standard? Can you point me to it? I missed it somewhere along the way. And I have never heard of an APUG standard. Point me to that one as well.I am holding photography to its OWN standard. It is also the APUG standard. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?
Because other visual arts starts with a blank canvas or a hunk of clay that is imagined and shaped into something that wasn't there before. Photography was traditionally something the camera froze - a moment in time where you started with something in the world already created. Today, viewers ask if the damn photo was photoshopped because they're not sure it was even taken with a camera.I have no problem grasping your concept. APUG no longer exists, so neither does it's standard. Where do you draw the line on "reality"? Does spotting a cigarette butt out of a scene count? Does hand-coloring a violet sky which didn't exist cross a line? I don't see why photography should be held to a higher (or lower) standard than the other visual arts. It would make it a lesser art form, as it would remove creativity from the hands of the photographer, instead insisting on some truth which was really never there.
Because other visual arts starts with a blank canvas or a hunk of clay that is imagined and shaped into something that wasn't there before. Photography was traditionally something the camera froze - a moment in time where you started with something in the world already created. Today, viewers ask if the damn photo was photoshopped because they're not sure it was even taken with a camera.
..
btw this thread wasn't supposed to be the same old same old digi v ana thread .. its too bad it took that turn
...
yupsNot sure I am hearing that. Clouds were added back in the 1800s, remember (in 1910 too)?
so having artistic license and removing something via lead pencil cuting and pasting retouching is a NO NO
but heavy artistic liscence via tonal representation ( color palet of film ) contrast and grain manipulation ( film type and processing )
and burning+dodging + enlargement of a negative ( the evil twin of cropping ) are allowed ?
its nice ot have rules to impose on yourself .. but your arbitrary rules &c have nothing to do with apug or photrio &c.
Why all this bickering?
That is not what I said or meant and you know it. We have exchanged posts on this many times.
...but dodging a tree or shrub isn't ? ... LOL
Chainsaw is a man's way...I tend to lay dead branches on ferns in the foreground, or perhaps tie back a branch with parachute cord (rare).
Include or do not include what one wishes. Keep the litter as part of the scene, remove the litter, or move the camera to have the litter outside of one's frame. All the same. The choice is the photographer's, based on his/hers wish for an image.
hi AlanBecause other visual arts starts with a blank canvas or a hunk of clay that is imagined and shaped into something that wasn't there before. Photography was traditionally something the camera froze - a moment in time where you started with something in the world already created. Today, viewers ask if the damn photo was photoshopped because they're not sure it was even taken with a camera.
hi donPhotography is a real activity. A photo is a thing - it is itself a real thing. Generally, we say photos are "of" something, in the way that a sketch can be of something. No one will confuse a sketch of a house with a real house. Why would anyone confuse a photo of house with a real house?
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |