Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
... and devoid of original integrity related to original capture.
This is a very problematic thought. Although photography is capable of representing reality in some sense, that isn't necessarily a rule.

A few simple examples.

Black and White photography, the world is colorful what's up with that? Really, is that anywhere near the normal view most of us see?

Cropping, when we take a photo we pick a composition, we crop it right out of the whole. For any given photo most of the context that our composition resides in is left out. Without the context how are we supposed to judge the integrity of a subjects tears? The scene can be real and misrepresented at the same time.

Color, we choose the films we put in our cameras. Velvia is a favorite of many, I've seen many gorgeous photos done on Velvia, what I can't say about most of those photos is that the colors represented in those tranny's ever really existed in the scene.

Studio portraiture, is normally fully and absolutely artificial, but it does exist in the real tangible world. From makeup through lighting and set building to posing it is completely contrived. It is Photoshop before the fact.

Studio portraiture's little brother is flash photography.

Colored lens filters manipulate how the film sees/how it renders colors.

Soft-focus lenses change the texture of a subjects skin. Vaseline on the lens can also be used.

Short depth of field controls context, blurring away things that aren't wanted.

Okay I'll quit, even though I could go on.