> I enjoy images when I look at them. Their relation to reality is > another question.
The key thing about photography that differentiates it from other media is that the image is formed mechanically from the direct action of light on a surface - it's not mediated by anyone's brain, so you can, in principle, show a causal link between the subject matter and the image. This is why photographs are so inherently believable, and is why people feel a sense of betrayal when they learn that a photograph has been manipulated (ie elements added or removed - certain activities in post-processing, such as contrast adjustment, dodging and burning are just working with what's already there to improve the presentation). Adding or removing elements breaks the causal relation between the picture and the subject and adds an entirely different dimension to the truth-value of the picture, taking into the realm of painting and writing. These activities may be based in the real world, but they are mitigated by the writer's or painter's brain. > There's fiction and nonfiction in writing. [...] Roughly, many consider > painting and photography the visual analogs. I think that's a category error - it's not the medium that determines whether something is fiction or not. Our expectations of photography and painting are different. We know that a painting is the product of someone's brain. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily fiction, any more than a piece of journalism is fiction. There are plenty of historical paintings based on the artist's sketches made from the scene which are as accurate and reliable as a reporter's article based on his eye-witness notes. These are not fiction, they're reporting. > Reader of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Tolkien. > P.S. I went to the Jethro Tull 40th anniversary tour last week at > Wolftrap National Park near DC. Ian can still caper with he best of > them ;-) There's no hope for you. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Steve Desjardins > Sent: 16 August 2008 21:33 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: When is a little Photoshoppery too much Photoshoppery? > > There's fiction and nonfiction in writing. (Given the season, I'll > mention politics, which isn't even fiction.) Roughly, many consider > painting and photography the visual analogs. The problem is that > nonfiction is rarely completely true, paintings can be realistic and > photos can be manipulated. We're just better at it now. > > I enjoy images when I look at them. Their relation to reality is > another question. It may be an important question, but it's > still not > the same as appreciating the image. On a photography list like this, > it's probably good to mention what you did because we are > interested ion > how the images are made. > > Steve > Reader of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Tolkien. > P.S. I went to the Jethro Tull 40th anniversary tour last week at > Wolftrap National Park near DC. Ian can still caper with he best of > them ;-) > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
