Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Hmmm, I suppose, but I also thought that the lines of people ready to 
> muse upon truth and artifice in photography were wide and deep. Analogue 
> cameras were bad enough, but now that the capture is digital and 
> probably filtered digitally from the start, at least that is what I 
> assume my camera's different shooting 'modes' are,...it seems that 
> 'faked' is an increasingly relative term.

  I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a white
balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several source
images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The latter has
something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single shot), so
it has a sense of "faking" to it.

  A very wide panoramic image which has been composed of several images
taken in quick succession is a rather border case. Personally I consider
it "faked, but it doesn't bother me too much".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message