I couldn't have said it better myself Tom. The entire concept of photography is to create an image from the mind/concept/perspective of the photographer. To think that any photograph represents the unaltered truth is ridiculous.
-- Bruce Sent from my iPad > On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > > John wrote: > >> If you draw the line at "nothing added, nothing removed" no one can >> argue about how much has been changed in the story the image tells. > >> There's really nowhere else you can draw that line without it being >> challenged. > > I totally understand what you and others are saying, and I do get the > point 100%. > > The problem I see is that there's a basic assumption that the photons > entering the lens and recorded on the media somehow represent THE > TRUTH. I believe that assumption is flawed. > > First, those photons pass through the lens and are bent in order to be > recorded on the media or detected by the sensor. As Bill noted, that > can drastically change the look of an image. So what focal length > represents truth (not to mention DOF)? Exposure? > > Then those recordings pass through digital circuitry and are changed. > Then they are manipulated internally by software to render a > 2-dimensional *version* of what was there in 3 dimensions. Enough > said. > > The other issue is that were I to pan the camera in any direction by > any amount, I'd end up with a different image. The mere act of > pressing the shutter release includes photons entering the lens and > making it through the aperture and discards those not lucky enough to > do so. > > So right there we could consider that elements of truth were included > while others were discarded, all because of where the photographer was > pointing the camera, be it somewhat arbitrarily or deliberately. Did > the captured image represent what was really there or did the > photographer deliberately include some elements while deliberately > excluding others? Is that what it looked like to the naked human eye > or was perspective and focus point changed? Was the intent nefarious > in making those choices or benevolent? > > I contend photography of any kind is ALL ABOUT deciding what IS > captured and what is NOT. That is the essence of photography and > composition. To state that any captured image unequivocally represents > THE TRUTH is simply incorrect. To say that changing image content at > capture time or afterwards changes the TRUTHFULNESS of the image is > false. > > Tom C. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
