Your quote says it quite well, "the contemplation of things as they are..." Things are not black and white, nor 2-dimensional. One experiences things/scenes with all the senses, however (unless the photo has a residual chemical smell), only vision is engaged when contemplating it.No, I can't see the shark and the helicopter and the UFO, only what I see in the viewfinder. Read my Francis Bacon quote below.
But we can photograph things that cannot be seen.Since the they never exist together in the real world, even a fisheye could not make the photograph.
But we can photograph things that cannot be seen.
I don't see any issues with darkroom (or PhotoShop) manipulation of images as long as there is no intent to deceive or mislead.
At each step of the way, photography includes manipulations which alter images. The real world rarely looks as colorful as my Velvia slides.
I tone regularly, to manipulate the image tone and colour.Manipulating images means changing the photograph to mislead or misinform the viewer.
But if you can indeed compose it in the viewfinder, you can see the shark and the helicopter and the UFO.
That is nice and can make beautiful images. Since your medium in this case is likely monochrome, this is not changing that, just changing the mono (one) chrome (color) a bit (from grey to something else).I tone regularly, to manipulate the image tone and colour.
I tend to use filters to make the spectral response of the resulting image closer to what the eye actually experiences; thus correcting some imbalances in panchromatic film. I also use filters maintain sky density, lest the viewer be under the incorrect and potentially misleading thought that there was no sky. I also do use filters to manipulate sometimes (medY, deepY with orange citrus for instance does look nice at times; MedR for over dramatic sky; etc.). In these cases you could accuse manipulation, but I would say filtration is part of the monochrome medium toolkit.I use filters to manipulate the spectral response, and vary the tonal relationships.
Portrait photographers use soft focus to sell prints. Husbands and boyfriends use it to maintain relationships on good terms. This is strictly manipulation.I don't do a lot of soft focus work, but I know others who do, in order to manipulate the apparent accutance of the image.
I see the world from unusual angles and views, so not sure why that would be manipulation (ever laid down on the ground and looked up- I did this in 1984 at night while backpacking in the the San Bernardinos and was informed that there were artificial satellites following an orbit every 30 minutes)?I take photos from unusual angles of view, in order to manipulate the apparent relationships between the elements in the scene.
Almost as bad as those people who manipulate white canvas by painting colorful images on them!I have friends who manipulate photos by hand colouring them.
I doubt anyone is misled, and I hope many viewers end up being better informed.
Manipulation can be used to mislead or misinform, but very few manipulations do that.
I tone regularly, to manipulate the image tone and colour.
I use filters to manipulate the spectral response, and vary the tonal relationships.
I don't do a lot of soft focus work, but I know others who do, in order to manipulate the apparent accutance of the image.
I take photos from unusual angles of view, in order to manipulate the apparent relationships between the elements in the scene.
I have friends who manipulate photos by hand colouring them.
I doubt anyone is misled, and I hope many viewers end up being better informed.
Manipulation can be used to mislead or misinform, but very few manipulations do that.
all of photography is adding and subtracting elements, and transcribing/translating something "real" into something else.
Yes, but there are degrees of alteration. With film photography, this could range from using a bit of dodging in the darkroom, to using multiple negatives on one print. If you introduce Photoshop then you can take it to the stage of digital painting and turn any image into something completely different. I am suggesting that with minimal alteration you are preserving greater integrity with the original scene. I accept that many people don't believe in working this way, but I do.
There are no rules.
Well stated. Thank you.
Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.
Yes, but there are degrees of alteration. With film photography, this could range from using a bit of dodging in the darkroom, to using multiple negatives on one print. If you introduce Photoshop then you can take it to the stage of digital painting and turn any image into something completely different. I am suggesting that with minimal alteration you are preserving greater integrity with the original scene. I accept that many people don't believe in working this way, but I do.
Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.
Sure, but people worried about lack of morality also have burned books and art.
totally get where you are coming from but no matter what one does with photography there is not much integrity to the original scene.
right, but as soon as it is captured in an apparatus, any apparatus it loses its integrity .. sure zen here and now totally get that .. but the only way a scene retains its integrity is with ones eyesThe original scene has complete integrity. Zen, here and now.
Post #2:Well stated. Thank you.
Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.
Schroedinger's Cat.totally get where you are coming from but no matter what one does with photography there is not much integrity to the original scene. Whether it is black and white or color. It all goes back to Plato and the cave... the idea that someone believes they are not manipulating a scene just by lens choice or camera positioning is rather strange. I don’t see the world I live in in fractions of seconds or less than 270 degree either.
Here’s a classic non-Moonrise example of exactly that by George Tice
View attachment 264247
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?