Photography is not an illusion, otherwise images wouldn't be allowed in a court of law.
I believe the very fact images are admissible in a court of law underscores my point, and negates your claim that "photography is an illusion."
So, in essence, this is my point:
"Art" would not be admitted in a court of law.
A factually-accurate image would be.
It's what are you striving for: Truth or Art?
Jack
Well fortunately, we're not currently in a court of law. Otherwise I'd be paying someone $300/hour to have this discussion of semantics. The fact is that in substance all a photograph is typically, is ink on paper, this isn't a point I'm arguing, I'm simply stating a fact. Most of the time these days, we see images, not pictures, and they are displayed as pixels on a screen. To your point, yes it represents something.
The unmodified landscape guys are always saying, I've modified this to the best of my ability to display it the way my eye saw it at the time... And it's shot on a 16mm lens that has most of the frame in focus. Did this photographer really have wide angle eyes? Did the photographers eye suddenly learn to put a 10stop filter on itself and gather light for 5 seconds to give motion to the water? The fact is that if I modified everything to the way my eye sees things I'd have round images, that would progressively get darker towards the edges in a gradient.
What they are trying to say is that they've modified the photograph to allow the viewer to most closely experience the same thing the photographer experienced at the time they were there. This is where the beauty of it all hits. Where the Art rubber hits the road and starts running. Now I'm telling you I want you to share the experience the way it "actually" was while I was there. EXCEPT we're going to remove the feeling of wind, the smell of the air, the taste of the air, the emotions of fear as the lightning crashed down, the slippery rocks beneath my feet, it won't smell like saltwater, you won't hear the ground rumbling, or the crashing of the waves. But sir, I've done my best to give you as close to an experience through this image as while I was there... Blasphemy. I've tied your senses behind your back, except for sight!~ How could I possibly expect you to share that experience?! Well it's through the illusion of being there, the viewer grabs on to their experiences with the things they see in the image, and they can remember what it was like for them when they were in a similar place. Suddenly your photograph sells, because to this viewer, your photograph is special. It conjures the illusion of being somewhere.
Does the client asking me for quotes on licensing care that my image has been digitally altered?:
Reflecting upon Moonlight by
Maddog Murph Has it actually even really been digitally altered for removing an airplane trail, and enhancing shadow detail. Let's say I hadn't done those things... would the como in the corners be an inaccurate representation of what it was really like? Do the artifacts have to be removed in order for it to be real? Are the artifacts required to remain in order for it to be "unaltered"?!
To them the image still represents the experience of being in this place, and what it might be like to be there yourself. Digitally altered or not. To us, or a trained eye, it's quite clear that alterations have been made. Actually most of the time the only "factual" alterations I make are removing people from landscapes, or enhancing color/light/detail. Nevertheless if anyone ever asks me if "photoshopped" I simply reply that most good images have been post processed, so yes, of course. Why wouldn't you utilize technology? It's what the old guys dreamed of before they went out of business because retouching became as easy as clicking a mouse button. An entire line of business went kaput overnight, why you might ask? Well it's because images no longer needed to be real. They didn't need to build sets that looked like anything, they could now take two pictures and merge them. Saved billions. Don't be a dinosaur, embrace technology.
If you get a client that wants things unaltered, go for it. If I could skip post processing and printing, and just shoot beautiful landscapes all over the world, pump out JPG's for people ... well I'd love that. I'd also love lots of other things that aren't going to happen.
