Jump to content

DSC03278.JPG


acesa

Exposure Date: 2009:08:26 06:04:04;
ImageDescription: SONY DSC;
Make: SONY ;
Model: DSLR-A300;
ExposureTime: 1/250 s;
FNumber: f/13;
ISOSpeedRatings: 100;
ExposureProgram: Normal program;
ExposureBiasValue: 0;
MeteringMode: Pattern;
Flash: Flash did not fire, auto mode;
FocalLength: 60 mm;
Software: DSLR-A300 v1.00;


From the category:

Landscape

· 290,472 images
  • 290,472 images
  • 1,000,011 image comments


Recommended Comments

Being new to the photography world am sure there is a lot to be

learned. I however like RAW photos untouched by enhancements. Of

course filters and other measures on the lens is acceptable personally

as long as it does not alter or affect the authenticity of the subject.

Link to comment

welcome to photonet.. great depth of field in this photo.. by the way i share your "taste" of avoiding excessive postprocessing/manipulation except in rare instances..

 

regards... tarek

Link to comment

You had a phrase that struck me:   "....the authenticity of the subject."  You stated, in a roundabout manner, that digital modifications are enhancements.

 

However, the camera (whether film or digital) and the eye are two very different devices, and they simply don't see things the same way.  You seem to imply that a digital alteration that is applied to a photo to overcome the limitations of the camera, thereby making the photograph closer to what is seen by the eye, is an "enhancement, " and enhancements aren't good.

 

Similarly, I can put a filter on a lens and make the resulting photograph to be nothing like reality.  Yet you imply this is o.k..

 

Allen, I'm just being the devil's advocate here.  I know what you mean to say, and I largely agree.  Digital enhancement that renders a photograph in an unworldly way is not what I want to do.  However, supporters of such enhancement will respond by saying something to the effect, "Hey, I'm an artist, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  I usually respond (in my mind) that this is bullcrap, because these images are usually being presented as authentic captures of a scene, not as an artistic interpretation of a scene.

 

However, I have seen digital alterations that look so completely natural that one would not know (except, perhaps, to a very experienced eye) that digital alterations had been made.  IMO, digital alterations (e.g., well-applied HDR) that overcome the limitations of film/sensors to produce a photo that looks more like the eye would see it are very worthwhile applications of the digital technology.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...