paul lorenz wrote:
My take is that the world is beautiful enough and doesn\'t need to be embellished.
Then why would anyone want to paint?
Photography for me is not about the final image.
Seriously?!
What I do in the field is capture image data that will allow me to best realize the photograph as a print. If I was still shooting slides, I might worry about trying to capture an exposure that looks more or less like the actual scene, but with film or digital rendering (positives, negatives, RAW files), the best exposure is often one that is not real at all, and the best realization of the image is not necessarily the one that looks the most \"real,\" whatever that even means.
I\'m not speaking here of wildly abstracted or obviously strange photographs, but of simple beautiful prints. I wrote earlier, but I\'ll repeat here, that virtually no great photographers can actually claim to have just captured a perfect thing in camera and left it at that. That great photographers do that is one of the great myths of photography, and we do little good for the art or for other photographers by sustaining that myth.
Dan
Jun 16, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #11625316 « Blended landscape images - legitimate or not. »
