|
|
Post by Alrik on Apr 11, 2007 11:17:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Apr 11, 2007 23:26:48 GMT
Interesting article; thanks.  As the author of the article says, a lot of the effects/possible ways to alter a picture can be achieved now with the proper tools and knowledge/skills, but it's a lot of work and the results can often be regognized as post-processes and unreal. On the ethical and value points that it rises, real vs manipulated pictures... The possibilities that these tools can bring are a great for improving the quality/richness (and accessibility to these) of the pictures we can take, to "render" what we want to capture, in the case where we want to preserve a view or image of a moment, and what we want to create in the case of artistic photography, photomanipulation, conceptual imaging and so on. It can push the limits further and on these aspects I find it great. As for it bringing further the questions like that of the family portrait example, it's pointful reflections; and brings back to the whole reflection about how we view and our link to "reality" in itself. I would consider that when a photo is meant to be an image of a real life moment or the essence of something authentic/concrete, manipulations other than to improve image quality are not so good or pointful, personally, and would take something off of it. And that other than that, the process is acceptable in itself, I think, probably a case by case thing, linked to what the image is intended for. |
|
As the author of the article says, a lot of the effects/possible ways to alter a picture can be achieved now with the proper tools and knowledge/skills, but it's a lot of work and the results can often be regognized as post-processes and unreal.