Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: FoundView  (Read 3405 times)
wim van velzen
Guest
« on: October 14, 2002, 05:51:59 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Most of the time it is principally the same as with a lot of older photographic / darkroom techniques.

I can decide to expose for 1/8 sec @ f4 or 4 sec @ f22. There is a difference in depth of field as well as a difference in motion (e.g. the waves you mentioned). If I expose for 1/8 sec and alter the waves digitally, is it any more manipulation?

I shot some late evening shots this summer in Ireland. One at an hour before sunset was exposed for the sky and is darker than the one I shot just before sunset, but exposed for the beach. In real life though, during the exposure of the latter it was almost dark (sun behind the clouds near sunset) than the former.
Am I manipulating reality by a bright slide of a dark situation and vv.?

In the first shot I mentioned above there was a ship at sea. Would it be manipulation to remove it? It wasn't there half a minute earlier or later, so?

It would have been manipulation though if I was making an ad for a holiday resort and removed all cargo ships from the images as I want the people to believe they will enter an unspoiled paradise.

I think it is more about the purpose of changing the image than about the actual changes.[/font]
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2002, 04:43:17 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael, are you an adherent to the FoundView tenets?  I personally feel it singles out certain kinds of manipulations as being "problematic" (such as cloning out dirt on a subject's nose) and favors other, more dramatic manipulations (2 minute exposures that turn ocean surf into mist, grad ND filters, serious dodging and burning).

I'm curious how the folks at this site feel about image manipulation, whether said manipulation needs to be disclosed next to every such photograph, and what kinds of manipulation are more or less problematic than others.[/font]
Logged
Gannet
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2002, 11:12:15 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']An unanswerable question, suitable only for long and tiresome debates, imo.

The longer I photograph, the more I realize what a "lie" it is. I don't mean that in a perjorative way. It's just that I see more and more clearly that photographs, FoundView or otherwise, almost never tell "the truth", and when they do, the photographs are usually dismissed as being "boring".

Look around in your world, say, on the drive to work. Now go surf photos at photo.net (for example). How much of the visual word we all live in is represented at photo.net? 1%? 5%? Not more than that.

One could easily argue (and some have) that only the snapshot is "true". That all photographs that are taken with artistic intentions are "lies".

See, told ya it was a question suitable only for long and tiresome debate. :)[/font]
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad