Even without the requirement for compositing I agree with much of what David Sutton is saying.
Photography by its very essence is in no way an exact reproduction of a scene.
1. It is a hugely impoverished version of what was truly there in the scene.Hopefully for those of us who are trying to represent something approaching the reality of the scene we can capture an acceptable substitute and then in post-processing bring out both as much detail as possible but also the "feel" or "emotion" of the scene in our images.
2. I do feel that should one add or subtract from the scene that one shot then disclosure in one way or another is required to maintain its integrity.There is no intrinsic sin in doing this sort of manipulation, only that it should be disclosed especially if the implication otherwise is that the image represents an as-shot kind of reality.
As mentioned before I am really looking forward to reading different views on the subject.
1. This takes my breath away. On the contrary, the photograph is an attempt to make reality even better, if only through the modest mean of editing what’s on show, cutting out the crap, as it were.
This thread is primarily about landscape, but the same truth underpins people photography too; you always accentuate the positive as you see it and eliminate the negative (good reason for shooting tranny… never mind). Photographic sadism is something else, though I suppose it, too, can be an art, but personally I avoid wide-angles in these situations.
2. I don’t accept this as any sort of valid unwritten rule or moral obligation. (As has already been said, forensic/legalistic/scientific uses of photography are different cases and are not thought of as part of the art scenario.) The photographer has to satisfy his own brief, that of a client and then, in advertising, respect any of the industry sub-rules about over-gilding the proverbial cake, especially with regards to food shots.
Truth, in any form of art, is a pretty big obstacle. Were it mandatory, what would be the point of shooting, drawing, writing or painting anything? Where would lie the buzz, the satisfaction of attempted creative input, which must be the principal reason any of us enters these disciplines? Oh, I had better include sculptors. (!).
As for the viewer asking the question: does he really
ask that? Maybe he’s just looking for something to say when confronted by the maker of the ‘artwork’. Better to ask an inane question than reveal, face to face, that there is absolutely nothing else to be said or even discussed about the ‘work’.