4 ms·

A photo is expected to be the truth in most contexts. "What is truth?" I shot a music festival this past weekend, and I'm in the process of processing it in L

A photo is expected to be the truth in most contexts. "What is truth?" I shot a music festival this past weekend, and I'm in the process of processing it in Lightroom. Part of what I'm doing is to make images that the artists can use for their own marketing. So I'm making various refinements to the images like making face a bit brighter and sharper, and smoothing out skin blemishes, and maybe whitening teeth. Am I lying to people by creating an image that is brighter and sharper? Is it going too far to make the skin look smoother? And even if we grant that I've changed beyond what the optics delivered, that's only part of the experience. Is it out of line for me interpret a bit to try to carry what's being lost from the rest of the senses - the fact that there was fantastic music all around, friendly people, and all that? Maybe a brighter, sharper face is a legitimate way for me to depict the gestalt of the experience.

willis936 7y ago
It’s not only a lie, it’s a lie made for profit. Someone looks at that photo and thinks “this is what it was like”, because that is what the photo is supposed to convey. Instead it’s an oversold fantasy. Is something okay just because everyone does it?
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  Instead it’s an oversold fantasy. Is something okay just because everyone does it? I suspect you didn't even read my reply. First, I never made any argument along the lines of "everyone does it". I don't know why you include that in your reply to me. Second, the final paragraph of my reply specifically addresses whether it's "oversold". There's much more to an experience than can be seen from a photograph of the scene, and I think it's fair to try to capture some of that in the final image. Finally, "it’s a lie made for profit." No, this is outright false. In fact, the music festival I was shooting was entirely free. Nobody paid a penny to see the performances. And the musicians performed because they love music and want to share it; they weren't paid a penny either. You're letting your own prejudices bias your judgment. EDIT: and just to round out the not-for-profit thing, I was a volunteer, too. My own time, my own camera, my own computer and software. I love the music and I love photography. I do this because I want to give something back to the artists who are giving me their music.

willis936 7y ago

It’s not only a lie, it’s a lie made for profit. Someone looks at that photo and thinks “this is what it was like”, because that is what the photo is supposed to convey. Instead it’s an oversold fantasy. Is something okay just because everyone does it?

CWuestefeld 7y ago
Instead it’s an oversold fantasy. Is something okay just because everyone does it? I suspect you didn't even read my reply. First, I never made any argument along the lines of "everyone does it". I don't know why you include that in your reply to me. Second, the final paragraph of my reply specifically addresses whether it's "oversold". There's much more to an experience than can be seen from a photograph of the scene, and I think it's fair to try to capture some of that in the final image. Finally, "it’s a lie made for profit." No, this is outright false. In fact, the music festival I was shooting was entirely free. Nobody paid a penny to see the performances. And the musicians performed because they love music and want to share it; they weren't paid a penny either. You're letting your own prejudices bias your judgment. EDIT: and just to round out the not-for-profit thing, I was a volunteer, too. My own time, my own camera, my own computer and software. I love the music and I love photography. I do this because I want to give something back to the artists who are giving me their music.