My philosophy leans toward the purists, despite the fact that I primarily use digital technology, and I hope that photojournalists, particularly, have retained their ethics about photo alteration. It is difficult enough to differentiate between reality and spin these days in the "news", and images are aired so quickly and repeatedly that their influence is profound. It is, indeed, a question that will be pondered for aeons, just a literary and other artistic license have always been discussed.
All of this leads me to the photographs below. I photographed Victoria in September, 1997, for my book A Place Like No Other: people of a enchanted land, near the Aspen Vista trail above Santa Fe. She had her two great danes with her, a breeze was blowing, and neither of us wanted to attract too much attention. Thus, as you can see below, there are pieces of grass in the photograph that, to me, are distracting. Would you remove them or leave them as part of reality?
In the photograph below, would you be tempted to crop or change the position of her left leg to reduce the emphasis of her knee?
These are the sorts of things I ponder every time I photograph and load images into the computer. Just a little something to chew on during these blustery, spring days.
until next Monday,
DB
a passion for the image
For what it's worth, I'd consider cloning out the grass but would leave the leg as is. Changing it would be too much manipulation and the wide angle effect of her prominent left knee lends dynamism to the shot.
ReplyDelete