The example I keep coming back to when thinking about this subject is the "stage whisper." I often exaggerate in order to make a visual point. That can be a literal or non-literal point, often non-literal but still expressive or communicative. I may exaggerate lighting (either on the spot or in post processing) to render what it actually felt like to me. Same with color. The vibrancy I saw and/or experienced may have to be exaggerated in order to make sense within the confines of the photographically "framed" image. That's one way to capture all that is NOT included in the frame that I may want to include. How, for example, does one capture heat (physical and/or emotional)? The exaggeration of light can help. Talking about exaggeration is a little troubling because it sounds like it assumes that there's a level of reality or accuracy that a photographer is either conscious of or bound by. Exaggeration assumes a baseline, a truth from which exaggeration takes flight. We've talked about differences between, say, photojournalism and fine art photography. And we tend to say that the photographer who is not doing photojournalism, etc. is not bound by the same "rules" as the journalist, documentarian, forensic photographer. I do find myself, however, often binding myself. In my portraits, though I allow myself great freedom of expression and have no "rules of the trade" obligating me, I also want a level of authenticity, both out of respect to my subjects and out of a consciousness of the way I want to use photography. I find that balance and tension between what I find in the "real world" and what I fabricate in my photos endlessly curious and exciting. It's funny, because I've often said that I'm not attempting to be accurate in my photos, but instead trying to be creative. I'm questioning that at this point. Because I think there is some degree of accuracy I'm seeking. I often do want to accurately (not fully, but in varying degrees) express or convey or even represent what I felt, what I think a subject may be feeling, or what the dynamic is between us. Sometimes it's simply just accurately portraying what someone looks like, which I find can be very significant. While I may be fabricating a lot, by directing poses, gestures, balancing color and light, etc., there's a level of accuracy that I often find myself not wanting to betray. I want to nail something that I feel, think, or see was there. There's probably a flip side to exaggeration. Understatement? Also a useful tool. Do you find yourself exaggerating or, let's say, veering from actual accuracy in order to be more accurate in your photographic portrayal of something? What are some different ways you do that, if you do that? If you don't think you do it, why not? What's your alternative to that? Thanks.