3 ms·

Does it seem wrong to say the post-processing your phone camera does makes your images fake? What about cropping a photo? Are impressionist paintings fake becau

by zwkrt 8y ago

Does it seem wrong to say the post-processing your phone camera does makes your images fake? What about cropping a photo? Are impressionist paintings fake because they aren't photorealistic? What about Ansel Adams photos, all of which were manually burned and dodged in a lightroom? Cameras are physically incapable of capturing as wide an experience as our eyesight+mind so photographers must compensate. As a simple example, note how pictures of mountains taken with a phone always feel cheap compared to the experience of being near them. This can go too far, like making the Aurora seem as bright as the moon. On the other hand, how best to capture the awe-inspiring nature of an undulating aurora than by making it fluoresce against the night sky in your photo? If the image weren't processed then you would see nothing at all...

kayamon 8y ago
> Cameras are physically incapable of capturing as wide an experience as our eyesight+mind so photographers must compensate. True. > On the other hand, how best to capture the awe-inspiring nature of an undulating aurora than by making it fluoresce against the night sky in your photo? If the image weren't processed then you would see nothing at all... So what you're saying is that if you were standing where the photographer was, you wouldn't have seen this image? It required an additional creative process to bring it out? That's totally fine. That's _art_. Art is a fine thing. But if you start showing art to people and try to claim that you just snapped a normal photo, getting all upset when people claim it's unrealistic (like the article's author), you shouldn't be surprised if people call it fake.
pishpash 8y ago
> If the image weren't processed then you would see nothing at all... Are you saying there can never be devices that capture the vision of auroras undulating, even a neural recording? The issue with this statement is that it gives up too easily on the capturing end, and taken to an extreme it implies a dead end for photography.

by zwkrt 8y ago

kayamon 8y ago

> Cameras are physically incapable of capturing as wide an experience as our eyesight+mind so photographers must compensate. True. > On the other hand, how best to capture the awe-inspiring nature of an undulating aurora than by making it fluoresce against the night sky in your photo? If the image weren't processed then you would see nothing at all... So what you're saying is that if you were standing where the photographer was, you wouldn't have seen this image? It required an additional creative process to bring it out? That's totally fine. That's _art_. Art is a fine thing. But if you start showing art to people and try to claim that you just snapped a normal photo, getting all upset when people claim it's unrealistic (like the article's author), you shouldn't be surprised if people call it fake.

pishpash 8y ago

> If the image weren't processed then you would see nothing at all... Are you saying there can never be devices that capture the vision of auroras undulating, even a neural recording? The issue with this statement is that it gives up too easily on the capturing end, and taken to an extreme it implies a dead end for photography.