Since I have no experience with Photoshop (or anything similar), it would never occur to me to artificially change the colors within a photograph. On the one hand, the resulting photo was quite striking. On the other hand, that may not have been what the photographer actually saw. So I am struggling with the concept of trying to make a photo look better than the real objects look with the naked eye, especially when it comes to shadows and colors. I suppose that process combines photography with painting, making it a completely different form of art. I will have to think about this some more!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree with you on your point that it may not have been what the photographer actually saw. But I can tell with 100% certainty that her result wasn´t what she saw either. Cameras ´change´ a scene completely. If she had her aperture more open, the photo would come out overexposed. If she had a faster shutter speed, it may have caused the shadows to look way too dark.
So a camera actually edits what you see and captures it.
What I like to do in my edits is make subtle changes that enhance the overall quality of the photo. I think my editing is on the edge between ´changing stuff´ and ´making it look more like it was´.
It indeed is an interesting discussion on which there is no real answer. I always edit my pictures, some people never edit their pictures and leave them the way their camera edited them.
It is pure personal opinion.
When I learned about photography for the first time I read a sentence that I remember till this day: In photography, there are certain guidelines to make a picture look more pleasing, but there is only one rule: there are no rules!
Have a great day @scribblingramma!
Now I have even more to ponder! Thanks for the added information!
Cheers!