Quote:
|
So following the thought, what would/should we make of the many landscape photographers that clearly have manipulated beautiful scenes of mountains, rivers etc etc, but also clearly have over saturated (or even changed) the colours to create a 'picture' that is striking to the eye, hangable on the wall but certainly not real?
|
I guess I'd have to go back to the original quote since Rowell says it better than I could.
Quote:
|
The tremendous public response to this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully represents a “real” event witnessed by another human being.
|
I think it's important not to get caught up in what techniques are used but how those techniques effect the final product. If the viewer stops believing that what they're looking at represents reality, then you've lost one of the major aspects of photography. You may have gained something else (see Andy Warhol again) but you've lost some of the connection to reality. If I'm looking at a landscape where every leaf is saturated to the perfect green hue, it starts to look less like earth and more like a fairy tale. Of course it's hard to know when the viewer starts to lose their belief since everyone approaches it a little differently.