View Single Post

Old 07-12-2019   #26
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
This is what quite a few dedicated film shooters claim to think. But I think its really only a rationalization for them continuing to shoot film. (Although they do not need to rationalize or justify it - if they like doing it, keep doing it).
Of course film photography can lie but there seems to me to be a more direct connection between a photographic negative and reality as we perceive it, possibly because faking a negative is a great deal more difficult than cutting and pasting in Photoshop.

Quote:
The truth is that (a) most people don't take picture elements out or put them in - or have the skill to do so for that matter. (b) in any event doing this really only matters in some situations - if you are recording something which explicitly or implicitly requires the image to be an accurate representation of real life then it matters. If you are making a shot which is explicitly an artistic interpretation and do not pretend its any more than this who cares?

I tweak images in post all the time. I change tonal values to brighten or darken, I change saturation to increase or reduce it, I add vignettes to focus attention where I want it and I will not infrequently add texture overlays. I am perfectly upfront in saying this is how a given final image has been arrived at. Mostly it's obvious that changes have been made in post anyway and what's more, some of these changes might well have been made by analogue film shooters too. Just using different processing techniques and tools.
I prefer photographs that don't appear to have had any tweaking. For me, those 'obvious' changes in post diminish a photograph's connection to reality and hence its authority. Of course if you just want make pretty pictures, it's fine.
  Reply With Quote