Nikon Z50ii - 12/28mm
No edits, real mist. Perfect.
Even a lack of changing things is a choice the artist made. There’s no true way to view light; everything is valid. Edits can make an image seem more vibrant or more perfect, or even less so: a muted color, more haze.
We shouldn’t try to achieve purity as an ideal; it doesn’t really exist.
“We shouldn’t try to achieve purity as an ideal; it doesn’t really exist.”
Not disagreeing with this, I simply dislike photography that distorts reality to such an extent where it no longer reflects how anyone would experience the scenery. E.g., editing a photo were a 1% fog during the golden hour is being photoshopped into the fires of Mount Doom. Sure, professional photo editing or concept art is beautiful, but that is not photography anymore.
On the far opposite end of things is Zach Doehler, who edits his photos to such a ludicrous extreme that even Lisa Frank would blush.
When I publish work, it’s closer to your ideal. I do turn up the contrast and the colors a bit, but that’s cause the RAW is just so dark and muddy that it doesn’t capture what I saw without editing.
For me photography can be both, a medium to try to show what was there as neutral as possible, and a medium to try to show what the scenery felt like for me. And if I want to show how it felt for me, the fires of Mount Doom are sometimes needed to convey the feeling.
“And if I want to show how it felt for me, the fires of Mount Doom are sometimes needed to convey the feeling.”
That’s what psychedelics are for. 🍄🟫
