davebreal wrote in post #17486323
I know very well what Creative Vision means... I was in advanced placement english in school for no lack of cognitive ability. My point is that many modern-day photo enthusiasts will look you straight in the eye and tell you that their personal Creative Vision or style is only fulfilled by unrealistic yet cliched post-processing. If the Nik Plug-in Suite was never created, would these individuals have no Creative Vision?
Also, as the title of my post implies, claiming that unrealistic post-processing is how a person "saw" a scene is a poorly phrased and often abused statement.
Instead of stating my "creative vision" saw the scene this way, why not phrase it more accurately?
"I thought I could spice it up by adding intense contrast using software plug-ins."
"The straight out of camera shot would receive little attention so I tried to improve it."
"I use heavy post-processing on my photos to get more views on social media."
I don’t really hang out with other photographers, so I reckon I’ve been deprived the pleasure of hearing “creative vision” bandied about with unrestrained vigor.
On POTN and other photography sites, the word “vision” is, of course, frequently used in various context, though usually referring to more than one’s literal optical abilities. Consequently, when ‘vision’ is cited, there’s a general understanding that it refers to one’s aesthetic perspective or visual style.
Now, are some folks abusing the term to vindicate reliance on hackneyed post processing techniques? I don’t know, but I would have to consider the matter on an individual basis before denouncing a whole swath of photographers.
Nik plug-ins and other post processing techniques, of which some have been around for nearly two centuries, allow for different interpretations that are, in the end, all legitimate as the other (even if annoying or overused).
If one of these techniques happens to actually suite one’s vision, then who are we to question this so adamantly? Would they be able to express such “vision” if these techniques did not exist? No, but that’s irrelevant, since they do exist. Lucky them in all of the resultant cliched glory!
And after all, even straight-out-of-camera shots involve manipulative parameters: sharpness, saturation, contrast, and so on…
Now, I don’t doubt that pretentious pontifications are sometimes used to explain one’s dubious creation, but who are you to say that, in the more abstract sense, one did not “see” the scene in a manner that extends beyond strict photojournalistic standards.
Pre-visualization is an important part of photography, and this often refers to what’s floating in the mind more so than what is so cleanly mirrored in the eyeballs. I shoot black & white. I literally see in color, but I’ll often pre-visualize in monochrome. Nothing too complicated here.
I reckon you already realize most of this, so then this all falls back more on false representation rather than any specific words used to cover up the deception. But even here, as you noted, such flagrant manipulation inherently reveals such culpability, so how significant is the actual need for a disclaimer.
Moreover, your suggested disclaimers basically seek some sort of shamed confession, that the photographer admit to using preternatural enhancements to burnish an otherwise subpar photograph, cater to the lowest denominator, or both.
To be sure, these reasons are probably true in a number of cases. Yet, perhaps when the photographer remarks on “creative vision” or the like, he or she is explaining why he or she depicted the photo as such rather than trying to cover up any post processing wrangling (which is largely conspicuous anyway, right). Just a thought.
And of course, some of the most mendaciously manipulative photos are the ones that do look natural, without anyone really aware that a certain official had been airbrushed out, or that the words on a protestor’s sign were photoshopped to express a contradictory view. Even more troubling are photos that remain untouched but are accompanied by a false narrative for propagandistic purposes.