3 ms·
All lens alter the light :) hence my question of the definition..
by RegnisGnaw 2y ago
All lens alter the light :) hence my question of the definition..
- Ukv 2y agoMy comment is questioning JohnFen's definition that a photo must be an accurate representation of the light that was received, to be clear. Any existing photo will diverge from that in various ways, often because it better captures reality (or that you can't really capture much at all without it).
- JohnFen 2y agoyeah, I was using "light received by the camera" as shorthand for "objective truth". No photograph perfectly reflects the reality it is trying to capture, of course, because the process itself introduces distortions. But that's an expected margin of error. My distinction is about how far the photo is from what I'd see if I were looking with my own eyes. If a photo is enhanced in a way that makes the image different, then it's photo-based art and not really a "photograph" anymore. That resulting photo-based art may express some sort of truth that just the image doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not a piece of art rather than a plain recording of reality. As a more extreme example of the sort of thing I mean, look at the Samsung "super zoom" functionality a couple of years ago where the camera was straight-up replacing the moon in photos with a fake moon image that looked better. That clearly makes the "photo" no longer an accurate representation of reality.