Originally posted by normhead
As far a I can tell, all competitions are about art. There are no competitions for "most realistic photograph"... anywhere.. Competitions are won by creativity in portraying a subject. Not for as exact (as possible going from 3d space to 2d space) rendering of the subject.
I would go even farther. Any photo meant to be looked at, not analyzed, is about art. Landscapes especially. Evoking something in the viewer over what is there. Orange vines over american bittersweet is what important. I photographed american bittersweet yesterday for data. I made sure all the identifying parts were recorded. Then I took 20 photos to get one that was pleasing to look at.
I also photographed 2 coyotes I see on occasion. It was from beyond a football field away but the only time it wasn't a brief moment. I stayed 10 minutes in 4f/-15c weather I pulled my hand out every time they interacted to get a shot that conveys something about them. Sure I would like as much detail as I can but I didn't choose the "Best" photo, I choose the one with the most emotion. I sharpened to distinguish the head from the body, I contrasted to distingish the forms from the snow. I used curves and levels to show the form of the creek in the snow. I also did all of it in a way that optimizes this on my monitor. Looking at it now, it might be too saturated to evoke the "together in isolation" feel I like about the image. I might do it different next time. I might try to evoke a Disney feel and saturate more and sharpen more.
here is the photo I reference so you can decide for yourself what you would want to bring out and what processing would achieve that. I am happy I don't have an evf because I saw what was there in the framing to compare against. My starting point is grounded in reality.
Last edited by swanlefitte; 02-08-2022 at 06:48 PM.