I'm a bit of a photography hobbyist.
Someone mentioned "overcooked" photos in another place.
Personally I agree. I can't trust colors anymore. There used to be a part of me that would look at a photo and say "Wow what beautiful colors that person managed to capture." Or, in fact, "What beautiful colors were out there in the real world". I can't do that anymore because it is quite likely the colors I am seeing in the photo are fake/enhanced.
I know, I know, film isn't necessarily 100% accurate either. I guess it is just a matter of degree for me.
Cue the "Ansel Adams did dodge and burn you know!!!"
Again, it is just a matter of degree for me.
At some point it becomes "digital painting" rather than just photography. I am not sure where that line is. All I can do for myself is to try to be faithful to the original thing I photographed.
I know no one probably cares about this personal "rule" other than me.
I just feel that sense of wonder and awe has been taken away a little. My brain jumps in and sterilizes out the "wow" part that was there when post processing options were a lot more limited.
I love photojournalism. Partly I guess because "dialing up the saturation" doesn't seem to be an important feature.
I imagine someone will now equate airbrushing away a dust spot in post processing with dialing up saturation by 30% and making the sky orange instead of blue, or splicing in a moon - for a more "dramatic" shot.
I guess I just prefer a more objective kind of photography.
If we called the rest "digital painting" I would probably have a lot less issue with it. Maybe it should be its own separate art form. Start with a photo (or not) and paint it the way you want. Heck, art has often been about re-interpreting reality. I would certainly value that as its own distinct art form. I'm just want it labelled correctly. :P
Someone mentioned "overcooked" photos in another place.
Personally I agree. I can't trust colors anymore. There used to be a part of me that would look at a photo and say "Wow what beautiful colors that person managed to capture." Or, in fact, "What beautiful colors were out there in the real world". I can't do that anymore because it is quite likely the colors I am seeing in the photo are fake/enhanced.
I know, I know, film isn't necessarily 100% accurate either. I guess it is just a matter of degree for me.
Cue the "Ansel Adams did dodge and burn you know!!!"
Again, it is just a matter of degree for me.
At some point it becomes "digital painting" rather than just photography. I am not sure where that line is. All I can do for myself is to try to be faithful to the original thing I photographed.
I know no one probably cares about this personal "rule" other than me.
I just feel that sense of wonder and awe has been taken away a little. My brain jumps in and sterilizes out the "wow" part that was there when post processing options were a lot more limited.
I love photojournalism. Partly I guess because "dialing up the saturation" doesn't seem to be an important feature.
I imagine someone will now equate airbrushing away a dust spot in post processing with dialing up saturation by 30% and making the sky orange instead of blue, or splicing in a moon - for a more "dramatic" shot.
I guess I just prefer a more objective kind of photography.
If we called the rest "digital painting" I would probably have a lot less issue with it. Maybe it should be its own separate art form. Start with a photo (or not) and paint it the way you want. Heck, art has often been about re-interpreting reality. I would certainly value that as its own distinct art form. I'm just want it labelled correctly. :P
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire