Photography as witness and reminiscence or uncooked materials for artwork? What say you? Photography began as an act of seeing and remembering. “This is what I noticed. This is what stopped me. This…

Photography began as an act of seeing and remembering.

“This is what I saw. This is what stopped me. This mattered.”

That impulse—to protect a second as a result of it moved you is foundational.

⸻

Two legitimate traditions (that always get conflated)

1. Photography as witness and reminiscence

• You reply to one thing on the earth
• You body it
• You hold it so you possibly can return to it later

Think:
• Family images
• Travel pictures
• Street pictures
• Nature and wildlife
• Documentary work

The {photograph} is saying:
“I was there. This happened. This is how it felt.”

That’s not lesser pictures. It’s trustworthy pictures.

⸻

2. Photography as uncooked materials for artwork
This is what I’m describing as “using photographs as the material.”
• Heavy manipulation
• Composites
• AI-assisted transformations
• Painterly or surreal outcomes

Here the {photograph} shouldn’t be the top—it’s the place to begin.
That may be spectacular, lovely, even profound—nevertheless it’s a unique intention.

It says:
“I’m creating something new, using a camera instead of a brush.”

The creation of digital know-how renders #1 moot. Crude picture manipulation by Stalin’s soviets could be the most recognizable instance of picture trickery. Like polygraph exams, pictures usually are not now allowed as proof in court docket.

Which places this dialogue squarely in #2, for my part.

SOOC has been non-existent for a very long time, regardless of those that nonetheless cling to the notion that they – not their digicam – are doing all of the work
.

Your publish requires an pointless polarization. And pictures as artwork doesn’t essentially require “heavy processing.” Contests often prohibit “photographs of art works,” besides in very restricted circumstances. But in some circumstances, like landscapes, the topic is the artwork. It does not want and even name for any enhancement. Just competent presentation.

Your assertion has at all times been true. Film selection, publicity selection, focal size selection, digicam place, and all types of different manipulatable elements have at all times been used to change pictorial representations.

But once I use pictures for documentation, movie or digital, I make selections that don’t introduce distortions. Where pissible, I make direct comparability (or a minimum of shut inspection) to make sure that my picture shouldn’t be inaccurate or deceptive. It’s not only a “snap and hope” effort

Yes it’s.
Depending on what one needs to do.

Rule primary: you shall not opine on authorized issues with out doing analysis

Rule quantity two: pictures are used all the time in court docket. {A photograph} is admissible when a witness with private information testifies that it pretty and precisely depicts what it purports to indicate.

Rule quantity 3: Polygraph proof is nearly at all times inadmissible in U.S. courts as a result of it’s thought-about unreliable and improperly invades the jury’s position in assessing credibility. Federal courts categorically exclude polygraph outcomes, a place upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and most state courts observe the identical rule. Limited exceptions exist in a small variety of jurisdictions the place each events stipulate upfront, however even then judges often exclude the proof below relevance and unfair-prejudice guidelines. As a sensible matter, polygraphs are handled as investigative or bargaining instruments, not admissible proof at trial.

Of course, however that wasn’t what I used to be speaking about.

Digital cameras have many in-camera options that weren’t “always” in existence. A snip from my Olympus person guide is hooked up as instance.

And digital cameras even have proprietary algorithms and processing {hardware} that aren’t understood or acknowledged by individuals who insist they alone are making all the alternatives.

But, so long as you do not edit a picture after it has been eliminated out of your digicam, apparently you possibly can think about your self a SOOC person

Wow, is that this the quickest that a gap publish has been taken so removed from its unique intent…by the writer of the thread??

Yes. I’m acquainted with these changes and use them as obligatory. But I don’t discover that any of them basically change the content material of {a photograph} to the extent of rendering it an inappropriate rendering of the unique topic. Photographing a topic with a 14mm lens after which a 300mm lens (with the required adjustment in digicam to topic distance) will basically alter its look and will definitely alter the depiction of how it’s located in its surroundings. That is an alteration that has been out there for a lot of, a few years.