Rant: I Love Photography

[Bobobird]

http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/02...e-photography/

Interesting read...

[Black Pearl]

He's right too.

There is a place for the absolute technicality of photography but at the end of the day it's the photograph itself that counts.

Nothing else matters so if an image is perfectly sharp, grainless, has perfect colour, exposure and all the other aspects that people get wound up about but it doesn't grab the viewers imagination or heart then it has failed.

[PBelarge]

It is an interesting read, thanks for the link.

[rpcrowe]

I love some photography and other photography absolutely leaves me flat. The write-up is a bit too philosophical for my tastes. The writer is imposing his set of values on me. I guess that is what editorial articles are meant to do. This article is a lot like arguing whether Andy arhol's painting of a soup can was art. I frankly don't care if it was art (as some folks see art) it was simply a photographically accurate reproduction of a soup can. Or was it "the emperor's new clothes" (now how's that for a philosophical view?),

However getting back to reality, I would be willing to bet that the leading image in the writeup, of which the author heaps praises, is a Photoshop doctored photo. It just doesn't look real to me. It is more of a "make love not war" editorial image than documentary coverage! When a person sees something that they want to believe, they will often believe things which are not real!

I remember an image of an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan, shot from behind, firing a shoulder mounted rocket. There was a great deal of fuss about the validity of that photo also. And, if memory serves me correctly, there have been several occasions recently of magazines and/or newspapers caught offering doctored photos as documentary coverage...

[Bobobird]

I too thought it was a PS job but....

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/434619...o#.TyJG8SObmmA

[Black Pearl]

Definitely real and a brilliant photograph, one of my favourites from 2011 too.