|
The Setting Sun Over Manila, July 2013
|
I know that what I am about to assert is contrary to what many folks (photographers) think are proper photographic practices. My vision includes elements of interpretation. I believe that I as an artist have the right and obligation to interpret any image as I see fit.
Take the above image: It is a variant on what the camera recorded. It is close, but the intensity and color saturation is somewhat altered. Overall, this image depicts what was, to human eyes, a realistic version of Wednesday's sunset.
|
The Setting Sun Over Manila, July 2013
|
This image is close to being what the camera saw. It differs from what my eyes saw because of the intensity of the sunlight. I could not look directly at the sun and see much of anything else.
|
The Setting Sun Over Manila, July 2013
|
This image is created from the preceding photo. It was actually an attempt at a three-image HDR composite. Somehow Photoshop had problems tone mapping the three, and spat out this (albeit in a milder form). At first I was disappointed, but I soon started playing with it, and came up with this. I can claim that I used my newly created "how a fish out of water sees color filter".
So, am I as an artist entitled to create either by serendipity or design, a variant that depicts a possible foray into the unknown? I think the answer is obviously yes. But, am I as a photographer entitled to do so?
I think the conventional thought is that photography is not true art. It is a sub field of the general category of art. I think that photographers created this thinking. It is my observation that some serious photographers dwell on the journalistic values of the medium. The thinking is that a good photograph is a realistic rendering of the subject. This creates a generalization that photography is of value in recording events accurately, but that it is not useful as a creative outlet.
I think that because photography is everywhere all the time, and that practicably everyone considers themselves to be photographers, that the medium is not taken seriously. I think that this is especially true and applied to those artists that utilize post-production techniques such as Photoshop. I am concerned that occasionally some really innovative and cutting edge imagery will go unappreciated because of the stigma of the medium.
That said, I know that there is a lot of crap out there, but who am I to judge?