I've been browsing various websites that give tips on photography.
I love reading tips such as where to place the sky-line in a photo, how to control exposure to create a soft or sharp background, or how to edit out the blue tinge of landscapes that are photographed from a mountain or plane.
But I get very uncomfortable with much of the editing advice. How much editing is too much? One site shows how you can replace a blah sky with a sunset-filled background. Another shows how you can edit out wrinkles on a subject. (This last one actually has good advice in general, I just didn't agree with this particular makeover technique).
Isn't there a tacit understanding between the photographer and his audience, that what he is showing you is beauty that exists, but that required his power of observation and photographer's skill to be made apparent to all viewers?
4 comments:
I think anything goes. And it all depends on what you are trying to do.
I sometimes think of my camera as a way to draw. How hard it would be to draw, or even think of, some of the patterns I see through the lens!
There's nothing wrong with editing, if you think it produces a nice effect. It sucks if it's a form of cheating (but wow).
Long ago I was inspired by a guy taking pictures with a lousy "pen camera". I think he did some photoshopping afterwards. No matter: the results are lovely.
I'd do it too with my low-quality pics, except I'm too lazy and don't need another time-waster. I'll edit all my pictures when I retire. Also I don't know how to use Photoshop (I wish I did).
(Actually I've been thinking of adding an editing feature to the pictures on my web site, so anyone could make new versions by cropping them or digitally altering them, using a web interface and ImageMagick. Maybe I'll even do it at some point.)
Also I read somewhere (Phil Greenspun?) that real photographers don't crop their pictures. All the framing is done at the time the picture is taken. I like that.
Then again, with lots of megapixels, the possibilities for zooming into a picture are amazing! (Gigapixel camera example) (also, largest (and dullest?) panoramic picture).
I take all the above to mean, do whatever feels good to you!
Hi Kai, thanks for leaving a comment!
I guess, whatever works for you is fine. But I still feel people should inform the viewer if they have doctored a photo. I mean putting a Florida sunset on a Utah landscape, or making an already attractive woman seem super-humanly attractive is just discouraging for the viewer who thinks, "there's no way I can take a photo (or look) like that."
Of course now I know about editing I could just adopt a skeptical attitude all the time. "Hm, that looks pretty, but I bet it's all doctored." But I don't want to be on my guard all the time, I want to believe what I see!
I like the photos taken by the person with the pen camera. It is inspiring to see beautiful shots taken with low technology. But not really what I want to hear about now we have a beautiful camera!
And yes, our wedding photographer said he never crops a photo. I guess it's an aesthetic belief that also saves a lot of time.
I tend to crop because we don't have a tele-objective lens, so if I just want something small that's far away and I can't fill the frame with it, I just crop it out later.
Speaking of editing, a radical option is to draw based on a photo. This is a fascinating collection of self-portrait pairs, first photo, then drawn.
Ever think of drawing based on a photo?
I often think of photos as a shortcut for what should ultimately end up as a drawing or a painting. The handmade result could more closely match the heart or intention of the photo.
How to submit your own photo/drawing self-portrait.
In drawing classes we were always told not to draw from photos, only from a live model... another rule that begs to be broken of course. I really enjoyed looking at all the drawings and photos. It's interesting to see what people see in themselves.
Post a Comment