Digital Photography Is Always Interpretation
Sometimes photographers will want to try to match the original subject in a photograph. There is nothing wrong with that, but it can cause some unneeded problems for many photographers. First, unless you are doing advertising product photography, no one in the world will ever ask to see the original subject. Second, all photography is an interpretation (including the photo as it comes straight from the camera) — you have to decide if an interpretation is appropriate to your subject AND your intent. Third, what a subject looks like in the real world is never what it looks like in a photograph simply because the photograph is not the subject, but a representation of it. And one more — the subject itself changes in color and appearance throughout the day because of light, background changes and so forth, so what exactly is “real?” I am not one for changing the world in a photograph, but I am also realistic that a photograph is not the same thing as the world. The reason I say this is because as a photographer, you will really limit yourself, even if you do perfectly realistic work, if you start thinking what is in a photograph is “real.” Andreas Feininger talked about these issues in his classic photo books that were very popular 30-40 years ago — way before the computer. Plus, if “being real” were the main thing to think about, no nature photographer could have shot with the very popular Velvia film (which all pros used).
