Real

I would like to mention two of the possible interpretations of “real” in the context of photography -

1. It could be used to describe a picture that is an accurate representation of the original scene, as it would have been viewed by a typical person, i.e. one with normal (or lens-corrected) vision. However, as the eyes see differently from cameras, films and digital sensors, it is certain that the image would need manipulation in the camera, and/or in the processing of the film, the paper, and/or the digital data, to correctly represent this type of reality to the viewer.

2. It could be taken to infer that the picture has earned some sort of validity to be regarded as an example of a photograph. However, consider that the Greek origins of the word “photo-graph” mean “drawing (or writing) with light”, and that the picture is only seen when the light from it enters the eyes of the viewer. Any picture produced by light, and with the intention of reflecting or transmitting its light to the viewer, should be valid as a photograph, whatever the tools or methods the creator used to make it.

Philip :)

Hello Richard, First of all I want you to know, I highly respect your experience, wew can all learn from your expertise; Secondly, I should have made my self more clearer, and should have used the phrase "In General". You are correct in making the judgement about "Documentary Photography" in that sense nothing about the photograph should ever be changed, that would imply deception/fraud and your point is well taken. I concur with you on the Zoo issue, it would be dishonest to imply the animal was photographed in the wild. "In General" coveres a wide area, obviously; so I see nothing wrong in editing a photograph, say, of a sunset to make it richer and more pleasing to the eye, or editing out an an object from a scene that would have been distracting and or in the first place should not have been in the picture.------(example) My Grandson is a WWII Re-enactor and participates with other Re-enactors at Air Shows every year; I photographed him in his comnbat uniform standing in front of a tree, and I thought it looked natural and made an 11 x 14 photo of the finished work , it was not until I was placing the matt around the photo that my wife noticed a coiled garden hose and a small watering can in front of a bush near the tree near where he was standing------it totally ruined the whole picture, so I had to do the post digital editing and removing the objects from the picture. This the rest of the picture remained "Real" in a sense, I had to do nothing else to it, it was straight fom my camera card. However if some photographers chose to edit their work and manulipate the image to their likeing, I also se nothing wrong with that either, as long as they are not trying to lead others to believe-----Wow! this is a great shot, and does not realize there was alot of manulipating of the photo that produced the final result. I have never lead anone on about any of my work, If I edited the photo I always say , Thank you, I like that photo too, but you would not believe what I had to do to make it that way-----(Never be ashamed to admit; I had to edit my work), especially if the photo was a once in a lifetime shot and/or could never be re-photographed again. I hope I am clear about this---in the end, being an honest photographer is what it's about-----right.

Somewhere in my files is the photo of my Grandson, in his RE-enactor battle dress; I plan to post it as soon as i can get the uploading problem I have straight in my mind, everytime I try to upload a photo I always do something wrong, I have tried to stasrt an album and add to it with out any succss, but I will keep trying until I get it right and it comes natural to me,

My Best,

Tom

Tom

Sometimes, not always but occasionally, people's opinions are influenced by other factors that what is obvious...

As an example, I suspect (certainly don't know but still suspect) that some photographer's adversion to Image Stabilization stems (perhaps subconsciously) from the fact that some IS lenses are beyond their budget.

Somehow I also suspect (but again don't know) that some photographer's adversion to post processing might stem from their lack of skills or ability in this area.

Along those lines, threads that are sure to attract attention would be "Unprocessed images have better image quality than post processed images!" or "My two hundred dollar lens produces better image quality than a two thousand dollar lens!" Neither of these statements are true but, they would attract attention and I am sure thay would have their supporters: people who cannot post process and people who cannot or will not spend two thousand dollars for a lens...

These topics could just as easily be applied to film making. For instance, there is much debate about the use of cgi in film, that it isn't reality based or real. How dare the film maker use cgi when you could just as easily destroy an animal when filming a stampede. But wait, filmmakers aren't allowed to destroy animals anymore, so use of cgi is justified in this sense or we just won't have scenes with stampedes.

I don't think Graham's friend was referring to the way a scene or image is setup but with how the image can be manipulated later through the use of computer software. I think the above reference to film would be on a par with HDR photography. You can get those amazing colors straight out of the camera but the opportunities are limited by the available light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viana

.........." produce fair-to-midlin' pixs that are “real”? There will always be someone who loves the “natural” look.




To be really, specific and technical, no photo or art piece is “real.” The reality is in the eye of the beholder. Each brain experiences and responds to reality differently.




Perception is reality.



Others have a different objective. It is all valid. :cool:

---

HERE! HERE!.....otoh, it is also valid to reach for excellence, and to covet the critique of experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonjdoe

HERE! HERE!.....otoh, it is also valid to reach for excellence, and to covet the critique of experience.

---

True, true. However, "excellence" like everything else is in the eye of the beholder and the guy with the money.

Have you seen the thread on the most expensive photo in the world? To me it's simply nonsense—but, someone with more money than brains or taste paid millions for it. :eek:

The Emperor has no clothes on, much of the time.

Regarding for the 4mil. picture as soon as one accepts there's a difference between value, and worth, it makes sense. The entire art industry and many others depend on scarcity to transform what are otherwise unspectacular materials into a sustainable means to transfer wealth from one state to another... ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I think your friend meant an image straight from the camera....

---

Her definition, I believe, is very strict. It cannot be staged and it has to exactly as it is viewed in 'real life'!
She didn't like my point that the choice of film stock changes the image from 'real-life' and the discussion got no further, not even onto the use of filters to balance light. So even a picture SOOC may not be a 'real' image in her mind.
And what about the way saccadic eye movement provides us with a higher dynamic range?
Never mind the way our brains interpret the visual stimuli we receive?
'Real' may be defined (very strictly) as being that which an individual perceives. An unrealistic (pun intended) definition in living life with others (which may be key to her strict definition - single for life).

Graham
(now reading other comments, been away)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viana

Absolutely no photograph, even a documentary photo, can ever be “real”—because, it all depends on the camera settings, the angle, POV, etc. All of those choices already manipulate the photo and make it “unreal.”

Every photo is therefore an image.

---

Thumbs up.
Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMi

I understand her position and respect that for her, it is a valid viewpoint. As long as she doesn't insist that I convert to her viewpoint, I have no problems with her holding such an opinion. Now, where did I put my copy of Photoshop? :D

---

Now you've hit the nub of the issue. She DOES try to convert, and bombastically at that. Unfortunately I have to deal with it and I can't walk away (although she does on regular occasions, and then comes back as if nothing ever happened). Her life is NOT 'real', she lives in some strange fantasy world where she is always right.
Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

Hi Graham,

You didn't say what her answer was :)
Ostrich like tendencies characterises her response. Walks off in determindly to the washroom without making understandable comments (I can hear comments under her breath). The word cantankerous comes to mind.

Generalising horribly here; I might guess that she's fed up with seeing attractive photos of celebrities which she knows are 'photoshopped'.
She doesn't like watching TV or reading magazines so he exposure is limited compared to average.

Being "non camera obsessed";
a) she doesn't know what's involved in image capture and hasn't 'thought it through'
Most assuredly. She has her way and it's the right way and nothing can make her change her mind.

b) I bet she'd like the results of what say, Colin could shoot of her :)
Probably not. No matter how good it was, it wouldn't be real. Unless taken under conditions that she accepts, probably with a film camera, no posing whatsoever and definintely no consideration as to lighting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamH

she is always right.

---

Ah yes. Miss Right, Miss 'always' Right. Perhaps it is best for her to be living in a fantasy world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viana

...Have you seen the thread on the most expensive photo in the world? ....The Emperor has no clothes on, much of the time.

---

I did see it.....and was properly ASTOUNDED......no clothes? INDEED!!!!

Have a read of this thread. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...hread14390.htm is the resulting image real? i would argue that it is, after all if picasso had re painted a nose he didnt like the look of or the place on the face it was in we would still think the painting was a picasso, wouldnt we? :D

I recently finished a very interesting book on just this issue of "reality" as applied to a photograph: "Believing is Seeing" by Errol Morris (http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Seei...ev_itm_title_1) It is a lengthy meditation on the relationship between photography and truth and what we can know and what we can't know. It uses a few famous photographs as a springboard for the meditations. While I don't completely agree with the author, he is always engaging. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, the book is well worth a read. FWIW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark von Kanel

Have a read of this thread. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...hread14390.htm is the resulting image real? i would argue that it is, after all if picasso had re painted a nose he didnt like the look of or the place on the face it was in we would still think the painting was a picasso, wouldnt we? :D

---

To me, the B&W “grungy” rendition of that photo looks much more “real”—in keeping with the character of the subjects and the sense of place—than the original high-key colour photograph that was probably a reflection of what the camera saw, but not actually “real” in the sense of what the mind processed.

Evidently Picasso's mind and those of many other people process things in very "unreal" real ways. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Evidently Picasso's mind and those of many other people process things in very "unreal" real ways. :rolleyes:

---

ooo deep way tooooo dee! :D