it seems that digital photography has to be considered subjective reality or impressionism if it is subjected to editing and manipulation rather than objective reality or representative reality of using a picture as a visual description of objects. what always puzzles me is why is it that digital cameras offer so settings options when the camera’s brain and image software should recreate almost exactly what the lens sees. i guess most people accept the art of image editing as photography now which still requires the opportunity and skill of whoever takes the picture to begin with.
Ansel Adams was an impressionist and not a photographer?
Every photographer has altered their photos since the early days. A photograph is rarely if ever “exactly what the lens sees”. Dodging, burning, cropping, tilt-developing, pushing with developer, etc etc etc. Digital photography just makes the process less chemical-driven.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
