I don't understand why this is such a difficult idea to ponder. I can understand where some things can be very blurred, but this is a very easy subject of philosophy. At least it should be.
I see it like this. Let me state the facts as I see them.
1. Photography was used to capture a moment in time, to have it last, that single moment in time. Taking pictures of family, friends, your first automobile, your pet, that beautiful scene while on vacation.
2. We as photographers take this a step further, we try to take GOOD photos.
4. Photography as an artistic expression is ussually seen as composition, subject matter, proper exposure, capturing certain moments in time.
5. Art as a photographic expression is ussually seen as using a photograph as your canvas, modifying it, creating your version of what you want the viewer to see.
6. It all depends on the photo, the type of photography sometimes does designate a certain rule of thumb, code of ethics per say.
A couple things, I happen to live in Olympia, WA, with a great view of Mt. Rainier, however the perfect angle at which I catch the sunrise happens to allow for some rather large powerlines that span the length of the west coast of the north american continent to just protrude a little bit on the bottom left hand corner, it's barely noticable, esspecially because of the low lighting, infact I could get away with leaving it there. But it's such an easy fix I just clone it out.
That to me, is the limit, pretty close to the line. Borders on lazy, too lazy to walk somewhere else and get a better line of sight.
The line that I draw is when you change the colour, or hue, to get a desired affect that was not there originally. Or upping the saturation to an extent that is unreal, but could be interpreted as real to the veiwers eye. Or oversharpening a poorly taken photograph, and then blurring the background to create nice bokeh. Ok I'm ranting now lol. Bye.
Wildlife Photography and Digital Manipulation
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted
I don't understand why this is such a difficult idea to ponder. I can understand where some things can be very blurred, but this is a very easy subject of philosophy. At least it should be.
I see it like this. Let me state the facts as I see them.
1. Photography was used to capture a moment in time, to have it last, that single moment in time. Taking pictures of family, friends, your first automobile, your pet, that beautiful scene while on vacation.
2. We as photographers take this a step further, we try to take GOOD photos.
3. Artists create art, photographers create photos.
4. Photography as an artistic expression is ussually seen as composition, subject matter, proper exposure, capturing certain moments in time.
5. Art as a photographic expression is ussually seen as using a photograph as your canvas, modifying it, creating your version of what you want the viewer to see.
6. It all depends on the photo, the type of photography sometimes does designate a certain rule of thumb, code of ethics per say.
A couple things, I happen to live in Olympia, WA, with a great view of Mt. Rainier, however the perfect angle at which I catch the sunrise happens to allow for some rather large powerlines that span the length of the west coast of the north american continent to just protrude a little bit on the bottom left hand corner, it's barely noticable, esspecially because of the low lighting, infact I could get away with leaving it there. But it's such an easy fix I just clone it out.
That to me, is the limit, pretty close to the line. Borders on lazy, too lazy to walk somewhere else and get a better line of sight.
The line that I draw is when you change the colour, or hue, to get a desired affect that was not there originally. Or upping the saturation to an extent that is unreal, but could be interpreted as real to the veiwers eye. Or oversharpening a poorly taken photograph, and then blurring the background to create nice bokeh. Ok I'm ranting now lol. Bye.