“Did you use any filters?” Invariably someone who views a printed photo will ask this question. This leads to the rhetorical question, “So that’s how it looked?” I’ve even witnessed photo galleries place signs that state “No filters were used on these images” – I assume to preclude the above discussion.
I am not aware of any magical filter that makes images look great – although it would be nice if one existed. In any event, most digital photographers will only use a circular polarizer, to reduce glare, as most anything else can be processed in Photoshop, including split neutral density and warming. The only other filter I even use is a variable neutral density that allows for slower shutter speeds in photographing moving water.
So, is that how it looked? Well, no – my image is a rectangle with borders, unlike the real world. My image is also two-dimensional while the real world is three-dimensional. Although I can use certain artistic techniques to make my image appear more three-dimensional. Our eyes see more detail in light and dark areas while the camera is limited in what it can record. Again, I may use certain artistic techniques to capitalize on this inherent deficiency. Finally, there may have been a telephone pole in the center of the real image and I have taken artistic license in removing it. I have not added a moon but I may have cropped and cleaned up the image to make it more appealing. I also may have saturated the colors slightly and lightened or darkened certain areas, again to enhance the image. These are the artistic elements of creating an image that hopefully, has appeal and artistic merit.
There are other differences as well – different lenses will either compress or expand the image. While other lens see almost as we see. Again this gives the photographer certain creative possibilities to produce an image that is maybe different than what is ordinarily seen. A different perspective of an ordinary scene can be very interesting – and that is the essence of photography.
{ 0 comments }
