The picture is actually more than kind of touched up using Photoshop. The original snap is like this:
In fact, almost all of the pictures posted on this blog is edited or at the least processed in photoshop. Mostly to increase the clarity and decrease the file size for faster loading on the web.
Like starting out with this:
And ending up with this:
Much drastic than the change in the tree snap, but makes the pic much better nonetheless. The process is not really important. What is important is that the fact that the photo was manipulated at all changes the authenticity of the photograph.
Sometimes however, when the conditions do not allow for the picture that you want, (since some say that photography is actually in the mind of the photographer and not in nature) you have to manipulate the image to get the picture that you want.
Like getting this:
From this:
Now image manipulation hasn't come about because of information technology. Those familiar with photography know that certain filters and substrata in the films on which the pictures are taken enhance certain colours and supress others. Complex methods of image manipulation existed even before Adobe came along and provided easier methods to do the same thing, along with complex methods to push the limits further.
Taking natural snaps is often crass and unclear without touching up. In this case, photography will be reduced to just aiming and clicking and cameras and films should be manufactured to imitate the human eye as much as possible.
On the other hand, if the final product is aesthetic and pleasing, it does serve the basic purpose of phtography.
Just want to leave this question open: does the final product matter or should it be as natural as possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment