May 3, 2016, 02:03
Interesting debate - I had similar on a few occasions.
It seems to me this is about realism vs. creativity? Some use multiple exposures for HDR, others for exposure blending to increase dynamic range. Some, gasp! use black and white and yet there is no landscape or person I have ever seen that is absolutely pure black and white. So why are some black and white images raved about while HDR is not?
Surely creativity / interpretation begins in the camera with choice of lens for perspective, camera position for background, time of day for lighting, aperture or shutter speed for depth of field or deliberate blurring or not etc. etc. In fact deliberate efforts to record as visually 'natural' an image as possible could be argued to be a creative choice?
What's so different about creativity choices in post processing?
If I am working on documentary imagery (eg news reporting/ historical recording) I would consider it unforgivable to manipulate the final result in an effort to maneuver the perspective of the viewer. Except for that, all bets are off! I'll experiment with anything.
If not, then photography is merely a recording medium and should not be used as a creative tool. I think you'll have a lot of very famous 'image takers' taking issue with that
It seems to me this is about realism vs. creativity? Some use multiple exposures for HDR, others for exposure blending to increase dynamic range. Some, gasp! use black and white and yet there is no landscape or person I have ever seen that is absolutely pure black and white. So why are some black and white images raved about while HDR is not?
Surely creativity / interpretation begins in the camera with choice of lens for perspective, camera position for background, time of day for lighting, aperture or shutter speed for depth of field or deliberate blurring or not etc. etc. In fact deliberate efforts to record as visually 'natural' an image as possible could be argued to be a creative choice?
What's so different about creativity choices in post processing?
If I am working on documentary imagery (eg news reporting/ historical recording) I would consider it unforgivable to manipulate the final result in an effort to maneuver the perspective of the viewer. Except for that, all bets are off! I'll experiment with anything.
If not, then photography is merely a recording medium and should not be used as a creative tool. I think you'll have a lot of very famous 'image takers' taking issue with that