Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowyowl
Surely it all hinges on the photographer's goals. Is the photographer trying to faithfully record an event or object or is the photographer trying to create a piece of art? If the former then minimum manipulation should be done, perhaps some cropping, exposure adjustment and sharpening. Only those things that contribute to allowing the viewer to more easily see what the photographer is trying to record. Mind you even in that sort of situation, photgraphers like Brady frequently moved things around to create a more dramatic picture. In the latter case then anything goes that adds to the creator's vision. Need a better sky? Put one in. Move a tree from left to right. Why not? Remove a wart from a face. Certainly! It's the same process that paint artists have been going through for centuries. It's part of what makes photography art.
|
I think here you're talking about artistic licence which is something far removed from the original discussion and would warrant a thread of it's own! The gentle removal of a frond, or the lightening of the foreground with a slight amount of colour correction and sharpening is perfectly legitimate and has been used to good effect for years by all manner of bird and natural history photographers. The moving things around or adding things that were never there in the first place is in my opinion to be left to the arty farty brigade because it's suddenly become surreal and far removed from faithfull recording of a natural subject, or for that matter a beautifull and realistic piece of photographic art.
nirofo.