I have to say that there are some wrong statements here. Its not being a hairsplitter stating when the basic assumptions plainly are wrong:
First ,there is no such thing as a "A (non-manipulated) picture". By offering different camera designs one offers different manipulations. This is just one example that disproves the statement of "A (non-manipulated) picture".
Secondly one picture can never, never ever show what happens even inside the frame of this picture. Why? Because a camera with one lens collapses the 3-D reality into a 2-D picture. Consider yourself making a photo with a big rock where you glimpse someone behind with one of your eyes. The camera cannot see this through its one lens. So it doesnt see "what relly happened". As an observer at the scene you can percieve what happens, but seeing the phto cannot allow you to percieve the same.
Third "Whatever the picture shows, whatever the crop, it is real". Yes, in that sense everthing is real. But its not the same reality as the original scene of the photography. Its a probe, a representation of the reality. So if I manipulate a photo in order to make it a better representation of the "reality" I perceive, who are you to jugde that as not being the reality?
With due respect,
Well put.
Possibly one of the biggest fibs ever was the phrase
'the camera never lies'All photography is an interpretation of reality.
