I'm the first one to put up my hands and say that I use both film AND digital cameras!
I see nothing wrong with this. Both are tools, both are there to be used.
But when it comes down to real ethics of photography, we need to sit down and think about what
is real photography and what is not.
In my books, real photography is recording what exists out there. In other words, if I happen to shoot photos
say, of a field in the countryside, and then realise the shots don't look good because of all those telegraph
poles in the way, and then I go removing them with some software tool, to me that's not photography.
Why? Because you've just taken away something that was there in real life, and created an image which is
not true to life.
Ok, I agree that film photographers do dodging and burning etc in the darkroom, to lighten or darken parts of their shots, but that's not going to present a scene that is not there in real life...it's the same scene, but maybe a little darker or lighter.
To be honest, this is a contentious issue, and one which will have people arguing till they are blue in the face!
But you see where I'm coming from, I hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment