« on: February 27, 2014, 06:12:49 AM »
Thank you for your detailed reply.
The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".
I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.
Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.
PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!
The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.
However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design.
Is there any camera that can capture a real photograph by your standards? I don't think so. Human vision has much wider dynamic range than any photographic system these days, including film. You can fake it in PP (that's what I'm trying to do most of the time). For me, photography is about capturing information about the real world. Then by manipulating it in PP I can either purify the true data (make it look like I saw it with my own eyes), or add some false information (which would make it a "digital art"). So let's be honest, there is always some amount of false information in all photographs. There is no such thing as a real photograph. You can only decide for yourself if the image contains enough information to call it a photograph.