Philosophic question
Jun. 22nd, 2021 11:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plonqSo far my post-vaccination reaction has been fairly mild. I have been running a low-grade fever off and on this evening, and the pain in my arm has been flaring up and settling down all day. It also feels like I have a headache wanting to come on. I'll take some Tylenol before I go to bed.
I saw a question come up on Reddit the other day, and it's something I'd mulled on when I got my first digital camera.
When does a photograph stop being a photograph and just become visual art?
I don't think that anybody would argue that making minor tweaks to colour balance, contrast and the like are fine - the camera will do that automatically anyway, so those tweaks get a pass.
I think that can be an argument made as well for a certain amount of cropping, straightening and sharpening.
I did all of those things to this one, then I added a bit of HDR, boosted the saturation a bit and overlaid a brush-stroke pattern.
Even with all of the tweaking, it still faithfully displays the original source scene, just not in a way that you would see it if you stood in the same place.
In my mind, this one is borderline. Given how far it has strayed from the original RAW file, I think this has slid into the realm of digital art rather than photography.
But what if I left everything else unchanged and only edited out the stop sign over on the left? I often edit out power lines and other distractions in my photographs. Once I do that, it no longer represents the scene as it would look to somebody else standing in the same place. Is it the same as other edits, where the degree of the change decides which side of the photograph/digital art line it occupies?
A popular technique I often see from photographers is to replace the sky in their shot, either adding in a more dramatic sky, or taking pictures at the same location (long exposure at night, and another during the day) and then compositing them together.
I think I would draw the line at the point where the edits go beyond removing peripheral distractions and blemishes and begins to modify the actual focus of the picture.
Removing a hydro pole in the distance is fine, but not adding storm clouds. Editing out a pimple on the nose of your model is fine, but making her boobs larger is, uh, stretching things a bit.
Ultimately this makes no difference in the world, but it's the kind of questions that occupy my mind when I don't keep it busy with the more important stuff.
I saw a question come up on Reddit the other day, and it's something I'd mulled on when I got my first digital camera.
When does a photograph stop being a photograph and just become visual art?
I don't think that anybody would argue that making minor tweaks to colour balance, contrast and the like are fine - the camera will do that automatically anyway, so those tweaks get a pass.
I think that can be an argument made as well for a certain amount of cropping, straightening and sharpening.
I did all of those things to this one, then I added a bit of HDR, boosted the saturation a bit and overlaid a brush-stroke pattern.
Even with all of the tweaking, it still faithfully displays the original source scene, just not in a way that you would see it if you stood in the same place.
In my mind, this one is borderline. Given how far it has strayed from the original RAW file, I think this has slid into the realm of digital art rather than photography.
But what if I left everything else unchanged and only edited out the stop sign over on the left? I often edit out power lines and other distractions in my photographs. Once I do that, it no longer represents the scene as it would look to somebody else standing in the same place. Is it the same as other edits, where the degree of the change decides which side of the photograph/digital art line it occupies?
A popular technique I often see from photographers is to replace the sky in their shot, either adding in a more dramatic sky, or taking pictures at the same location (long exposure at night, and another during the day) and then compositing them together.
I think I would draw the line at the point where the edits go beyond removing peripheral distractions and blemishes and begins to modify the actual focus of the picture.
Removing a hydro pole in the distance is fine, but not adding storm clouds. Editing out a pimple on the nose of your model is fine, but making her boobs larger is, uh, stretching things a bit.
Ultimately this makes no difference in the world, but it's the kind of questions that occupy my mind when I don't keep it busy with the more important stuff.
