like when you add elements that couldnt be replicated with the camera itself.
I dunno...its hard for me to explain myself with this topic, as far as what i have seen with all the photographers i'm watching, i havent considered anything a photomanip yet.
except the vibrant, clown pukeish HDR's i would call those a photomanip
This is what makes me laugh. People that think the image out of a digital camera is perfect. That is so /not/ true. There are algorithms that the light information is being thrown into to get the image sensor, its gains and trims, to jive with how it should appear in contrast to film.
Digital photography /requires/ post processing.
The post-processing in digital, from my perspective, is synonymous with developing the film of a 35mm or better camera. You might have the pictures, but you aren't quite done yet...
I disagree with Fen's later statement about what the camera can replicate because images sensors *can't* recreate a scene as we see it or as film can can see it. They do come close to film, but its still lacking and HDR is the answer for creating an artificial dynamic range that *CAN* conceivably portray how we would have seen that scene... when done right.
I think it becomes a photomanipulation when you are consciously trying to turn the image into something new. When you're post processing, you tweak various things but are still left with that original basic image. With a photomanipulation, you are trying to turn that image into something new.
To take a picture is to try and capture something you see.
The most interesting pictures are taken by photographers who sees thing that no one else sees. The beauty of the mundane, emotions of the inanimate, or movement of a still object. A good photograph shows what the photographer saw in the subject to a viewer.
Photo-manipulation starts when the photographer tries to add something that they failed to capture, or wasn't there to begin with.
This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. Learn More
I dunno...its hard for me to explain myself with this topic, as far as what i have seen with all the photographers i'm watching, i havent considered anything a photomanip yet.
except the vibrant, clown pukeish HDR's i would call those a photomanip
Digital photography /requires/ post processing.
The post-processing in digital, from my perspective, is synonymous with developing the film of a 35mm or better camera. You might have the pictures, but you aren't quite done yet...
I disagree with Fen's later statement about what the camera can replicate because images sensors *can't* recreate a scene as we see it or as film can can see it. They do come close to film, but its still lacking and HDR is the answer for creating an artificial dynamic range that *CAN* conceivably portray how we would have seen that scene... when done right.
The most interesting pictures are taken by photographers who sees thing that no one else sees. The beauty of the mundane, emotions of the inanimate, or movement of a still object. A good photograph shows what the photographer saw in the subject to a viewer.
Photo-manipulation starts when the photographer tries to add something that they failed to capture, or wasn't there to begin with.