\"An idealized photograph would show the scene exactly as seen by the human eye.\"
The key point here is that it is a myth to think that this is achievable. I\'m not big on \"altered reality\" either ... but when I take a picture and it comes out with \"blue snow\" it is because the snow is reflecting the blue sky light and the camera recorded it as such. Yet, when I walk up to the snow and look at it ... well, it isn\'t blue.
The camera simply cannot perform the selective accommodation that occurs within the brain ... thereby it is not possible for the camera (alone) to produce such a photograph. As such, we must be willing to interpret and intervene as needed to generate an image that is representative of our eye/brains representation that we aspire to convey to others.
+1 @ the experience.
I do essentially no composting ... mostly relegated to tonal value and WB accommodations to offset the gap between the camera\'s non-accommodating character and our eye/brain accommodating character. As to drama, it is largely a degree of DR. Now, if someone can quantify how much accommodation our brains impart for a given DR, I\'d be interested to know that algorithm. However, short of knowing that ... it becomes a very subjective interpretive representation, when we are talking drama, imo.
Nothing wrong with complete inclusion. If that is the message you want to convey to your viewer, then that\'s what you do. That is a decision that only the person making the image can determine ... i.e. \"What\'s your point?\" / \"What\'s the message you want to convey to your viewer?\"
To me, the ideal photograph is the one that achieves the objective that the photographer has for presenting the image to viewers ... whatever that may be.
Oct 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11050598 « The door and window problem »
