All of my photographs are photographs, whether I manipulate them or
not. Call yours something else if you wish. But photography is
certainly not limited to recording data for posterity. It's an art, and
as with the other arts, artificial limits should never be imposed.
Paul
On Jun 19, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
On 6/19/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: How to make Good Pictures (Let's Free the Captured
Images)
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.
A bit of a dichotomy. More pleasing and more realistic? What happens
if you
decide that to make it more pleasing, you need to alter reality?
As soon as you do that, you are misrepresenting the subject.
William Robb
I have to agree with Bill, here. Allow me to proliferate. Truth in
photography has nothing to do with the lens, camera, processing
chemicals, photo paper, enlarger, or the color of paint on your
darkroom walls. Our own eyes are good examples of this. My left eye
produces a slightly sharper image than my right. My right eye,
however, allows me to see more detail, though slightly blurred, than
my left. eg. Staring at a blade of grass with my right eye from six
feet up tells me there is a 'vein' (terminology?) running through the
center. My left eye allows more edge definition of the blade itself,
but only barely resolves the vein. Hell, your own eyes may have a
different focal length than mine. My dear, departed Malamute couldn't
see much color (so I've been told). Lots of folks are color blind.
Some of you may have a better angle of view than I do. But what we
see is really there. It's the truth, plain and simple. Thus, using a
wide angle lens or an extreme telephoto produces no deception.
Monochrome film is no less deceptive than color. Kodak Gold is just
as honest as Velvia. Ann's recently sold Nikkormat is no more or less
honest than an *istD.
However, the details in that blade of grass are already fading from my
memory. My own mind wasn't capable of permanently recording even a
tenth of that information. At best, I might remember that we had a
discussion about about truth in photography and I walked outside to
look at a blade of grass in an attempt to prove a point. I believe
this is why people make photographs. It's why we take cameras to the
beach and it's why we use photographs to advertise a product. It
covers everything in between.
Taking of photograph of my backyard and then removing the tree in the
background so that the blade of grass has a more pleasing appearance
is dishonest. It's no longer a photograph. Call it a collage, an
image, art, whatever. At best your final result contains part of a
photograph. Presenting such an image and not being forthright about
the alteration makes it difficult to impossible for the viewer to come
to a come to a realistic conclusion. If you want to edit the reality
out of your photographs, fine. Just let your viewer know. Otherwise,
it's deception.
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
--
"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
