Oh dear, even when the sun is out (as you see it was yesterday morning), its light comes in so flat an angle that you better live high above to see it at all.
Remember yesterday’s question about image composites? Well, obviously the real question is, what is photography - if photography is what I make at all. But it is not a game of names, in the end we will probably care more about the thing itself than its name. Help me please to understand the nature of what we are talking about here:
What exactly is it that could make a composite an objectionable photograph or could take away its photographic nature at all? This is obviously directed more at Paul Maxim, but the notion, that there is a credibility problem with composite photographs, is quite common. Is it credibility?
Or is it something about an image that does not look like it has looked “in nature”? Remember my usage of fill flash some days ago? How does this all relate to flash? An image with flash certainly looks very different from what it “looked in nature”. Is flash OK? But if so, why? Because it is “photographic”? Because flash has been used in all of photography’s history? Because it is a non-manipulated capture of a moment when the world was lit with flash? So many questions 🙂
The Song of the Day is “Live High” from Jason Mraz’s extraordinary 2008 album “We Sing, We Dance, We Steal Things”. Hear it on YouTube.