Do you consider retouched pictures as "true" photography?

not really, I guess I consider it as something like film making. Photography is used in this area but it isn't of course photography because more than that art is needed. Same with retouched pictures.

>>3068868
sure

photography isnt really art anyway, so why not

anything outside what Daido did or would do, is fake photography.

>>3068879
>Moriyama
poor man's Koudelka

Yes. All photography is inherently dishonest anyway.

i want to create an image from my imagination , not to replicate reality

>>3068889
then learn to paint.

>>3068891
gotcha, i sucks at painting, so i choose the camera as my medium

>>3068906
just like in painting you have to put hours into your photography to actually get good results.

Absolutely. Personally, I try to capture what I want to see, not reality. Moments in time are so subjective and remembered differently. There's also nothing wrong with desiring to see or capture things as they truly exist in your vision - it's a philosophical choice I guess.

>>3068885
Woah. Hot taek alert. Who here is demanding honesty?

>>3068868
What kind of retouching are we talking about? Any or all retouching, or only heavy editing that goes beyond simple adjustments to color balance, contrast or saturation?

My goal is always to capture the scene as I desire it, and sometimes I need heavier editing, sometimes I don't. I've found that I can get my skies to be much better detailed and colorful if I use a certain amount of burning for example. Or that superfluous objects like signs, lamp posts and cell phone towers add nothing meaningful to the frame.

>>3068911
been there for quite some time , cannot notice any significant improvement at all

As long as you don't call it "photojournalism" or "documentary" I couldn't care less what people do with their photos.

>>3068868
You've manipulated the image from the moment you chose to fix a specifically framed moment in time, so what's the problem of editing the contents within? It's just an embellishment of a vision you've already decided upon. How much you lie in or out of camera is really limited only by your patience and resources. I'd personally prefer to use the clone tool instead of carrying around a hacksaw.

>>3068868
>Do you consider retouched pictures as "true" photography?

It doesn't matter.

What matters is creating something that is important to me, the rest of the world can take it or leave it.

File: 0fdbe6458c7c04c29984c54fcbea9d75.jpg (47KB, 720x543px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 720x543px

>>3068931
What if you call it SPONSORED CONTENT

>>3068868
Old as shit discussion: look up pictorialism and the f/64 group's response (and realize that even the f/64ers did a shitton of "manipulation" in the darkroom).

My personal views are art is art. If you get assed up over attempting to box different works into the ultra specific medium, then just call it "digital mixed media" if it makes you feel better.

Photojournalism, documentary work, and other fields of photography that purport to represent reality, fuck off with manipulations beyond something like bumping up/down exposure, and even then that shit can be questionable because it can influence how the scene is interpreted (which is honestly unavoidable because such can be done with a host of other techniques like choice of composition and exposure settings).

Basically, if your shit is modified, don't claim it to be reality. If your shit is art, then who gives a fuck what specific medium it is? A drawing doesn't gain or lose power just by being in pencil instead of charcoal or ink.

>>3068868
art is art and photography is an art. a camera cannot capture the image in your minds eye. its up to the artist to translate his vision to the viewer.

>>3068868
I just wanna be my own artist

>>3068868

Yes, until you get into heavy composites, in which case I'd consider it more digital media/art in which photography is just a part of the process.

>>3068989
That's either advertising or propoganda