cadman342001
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
GroWeb wrote:
I would like to pick up on something you have said, Curtis---which I realize was just a totally appropriate expression of personal taste---to discuss a topic that may be a bit controversial, but that this thread will undoubtedly treat with its characteristic respect and care. It is the question about photography as representation of reality versus photography as interpretive art.
For example, if the level of colour saturation in Andy's photo is higher than it was in the actual scene, it is not a precise representation of the reality (of course, neither is the blurred water), but it might still be excellent art (which I think it is, regardless of representational accuracy). Please note that there is absolutely no colour saturation in his monochrome image, and yet nobody would be likely to worry that it doesn't represent the reality accurately. (By the way, Andy, I like both images equally, but for different reasons).
In truth, any photography, even explicitly documentary photography, is selective in its representation of reality, in that it has an inescapably editorial feature to it due to the limitation of the frame and the compositional choices made. The angle of view of the lens used also distorts the reality, especially if is an ultrawide, a fisheye, or a long telephoto lens (note that there is not even unanimous agreement on what constitutes a "normal" focal length), as does the "bokeh," especially in macrophotography. Any type of film lends a characteristic quality to each image that is not the same as what is seen through the human eye, as does most, if not all, digital post-processing and plenty of darkroom work; and colour representation also depends a great deal on the viewing medium. I won't even get started on infrared photography, which accesses wavelengths of light that are invisible to the human eye!
Thus, all photography is artistic and interpretive to some extent, and none of it can truly be said to represent reality with precision. But I don't want to be too pedantic or stodgy about this; there is obviously a continuum of representationality, from very accurate to very artistic/interpretive. My point is that photography is inescapably artistic and interpretive to some extent, and that it is a legitimate, rich, and enormously enjoyable artistic medium that we can use to convey emotional experience in ways that are unique to this medium.
Now that my little moment of passion is over---and in response to your liking for window reflections, Curtis---here are three more visible spectrum photos from the Hot August Nights car show in Comox. They were taken with my Fuji X-T4 and the lenses identified in the captions....Show more →
As in my reply to Curtis, yes, I aim to produce pleasing "art" that would look good on a wall, not necessarily photo-realistic representations of the scene.
BUT - I process on an uncorrected 13" laptop with an AMOLED screen so I have no idea what my images really look like  so I rely on you guys to tell me if it's off the chart over saturated !
It's an argument as old as photography, still raging in all the FB groups I belong to and now we have AI adding to the discussion, sky swaps, composites, as you say IR, false colour etc.
What happened to good old fashioned critique? It used to be that people took it onboard whether they agreed with it or not as it often helped them become better photographers. People don't like that anymore, I see posts (not here of course) where people pre-qualify photos they have taken and say they don't want any comments from anyone being rude or critical of their work.
From my perspective, as long as you captured everything in the photo and processed it yourself then it's all good.
|
. If you don't like the shot, well, that's OK too.
