I don't call my pictures anything but pictures. I leave it to the
viewers to decide. A photograph presented solely for viewing pleasure
promises nothing more. I've done newspaper photography and magazine
photography. I'll clean things up if necessary but I don't misrepresent
the subject. Hell, I don't misrepresent the subject in any of my
photography. I only strive to make it more realistic and more pleasing
to look at.
By the way, while advertising photography is heavily retouched to
achieve as nice a look as possible, it can never misrepresent a
product. You have no idea how many lawyers have to approve an ad before
it can be inserted. Car colors, for example, are compared to color
chips. In certain circumstances, we're not even allowed to use
abnormally long or wide lensing. Your paranoia is showing.
Paul
On Jun 19, 2005, at 9:59 AM, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: How to make Good Pictures (Let's Free the Captured Images)
On Jun 19, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Tom Reese wrote:
Viewers assume that a photograph depicts reality. They've been
trained since childhood that a picture doesn't lie.
Children aren't allowed to see BW photography? No one could possibly
believe that the world exists in shades of gray. Photos don't depict
reality. Photos are representations of reality that differ from what
the eye sees in a variety of ways.
You are starting to sound like a broken record.
Turn the sky pink for all I care, but if you are going to call your
image a true representation, don't add or remove thinks from it.
Or, if you do, make sure you tell the viewer about it.
The unconstrained revelry that you enjoy in the advertising business
is not the same world that most of us live in.
No one believes your pictures anyway, we are prepared for
advertisements to be optimized to the point of being outright lies.
We are not prepared for it in every picture we see.
William Robb
