Comments on: When Is Photography Real? http://robertrodriguezjr.com/2010/02/27/when-is-photography-real/ Landscape Images of the Hudson Valley and Beyond Mon, 07 May 2012 17:30:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: RR Jr http://robertrodriguezjr.com/2010/02/27/when-is-photography-real/comment-page-1/#comment-13385 RR Jr Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:32:47 +0000 http://robertrodriguezjr.com/?p=2503#comment-13385 All good points, and I agree that adding elements that were not in the original capture certainly makes an image "digital art". I would suggest however, that a successful photograph, and one that I would still qualify as "real", encompasses what the photographer both <em>felt</em> and saw. Conveying ones emotions about a scene is so very important, as Ansel Adams repeated so frequently. Thanks for your insightful thoughts! RR All good points, and I agree that adding elements that were not in the original capture certainly makes an image “digital art”. I would suggest however, that a successful photograph, and one that I would still qualify as “real”, encompasses what the photographer both felt and saw. Conveying ones emotions about a scene is so very important, as Ansel Adams repeated so frequently.

Thanks for your insightful thoughts!
RR

]]> By: Rae http://robertrodriguezjr.com/2010/02/27/when-is-photography-real/comment-page-1/#comment-13384 Rae Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:54:46 +0000 http://robertrodriguezjr.com/?p=2503#comment-13384 After reading the NY Times article, I have to think of the damage done to young women who believe the models seen in magazines and catalogs are "real," when in actuality the photos have been altered to fit the "reality" of the fashion industry. These very real young women then try to become what they have been taught is "real," but which is in reality a fantasy; often to the detriment of their physical and mental health. When it comes to landscapes, I believe it's possible to process a realistic photo so it changes to photo or digital art. Often, such a photo looks artificial, or the processor added or subtracted objects or elements. In my opinion, that would not qualify as a capture of a real moment, which is how I interpret a "real" photograph. If you capture a sunset, and process so the colors and brightness express what you saw, that would be a 'real' photo. If you capture a sunset, and later add a flock of geese 'for interest,' that's not what you saw in the moment. That photo then becomes 'digital art.' I think there is a difference between trying to share a moment in nature, along with all the emotion involved; and manipulating a scene to present something that was never really there except in one's imagination. Just my opinion. After reading the NY Times article, I have to think of the damage done to young women who believe the models seen in magazines and catalogs are “real,” when in actuality the photos have been altered to fit the “reality” of the fashion industry. These very real young women then try to become what they have been taught is “real,” but which is in reality a fantasy; often to the detriment of their physical and mental health.

When it comes to landscapes, I believe it’s possible to process a realistic photo so it changes to photo or digital art. Often, such a photo looks artificial, or the processor added or subtracted objects or elements. In my opinion, that would not qualify as a capture of a real moment, which is how I interpret a “real” photograph.

If you capture a sunset, and process so the colors and brightness express what you saw, that would be a ‘real’ photo. If you capture a sunset, and later add a flock of geese ‘for interest,’ that’s not what you saw in the moment. That photo then becomes ‘digital art.’ I think there is a difference between trying to share a moment in nature, along with all the emotion involved; and manipulating a scene to present something that was never really there except in one’s imagination. Just my opinion.

]]>