the way it was.....

I was reading a scrapbooker's blog. She said she didn't mess with her pics with software, because she felt it was preferable to use them as they came, as that was the way it was, really.

Hmmmm.

Her comment sort of boggled my mind..... Anyone who pays any attention at all to photography is clear that what the camera remembers may or may not be "the way it was, really." This brand of film is more red, that brand of film is more blue. With digital, the same thing is true -- when I look through my camera's viewfinder, it shows me the colors it is going to store. Sometimes they are what I see with my own eyes, but not always...............

Adjusting the pics, as I very often do, to more closely resemble what *I* remember than what the camera remembers ... is my responsibility, as I *can* adjust them, and as I want this to be *my* work, not just the happenstance result of a finger on a shutter-release....

And then there is pushing the saturation, or removing it, adding color, filters, whatever. They make the work more *mine*, imh. Less a chance capture of data, more an act of will, skill, practice, creativity.

On the other hand -- I have read books on portrait photography, where they show how to make a person look skinnier. In some of their examples, the person doesn't really look much like herself (why is it always a woman?), when they are done with her. I admit that I feel a bit squeamish about this.... Is a portrait supposed to be "the way it was, really" or.... I suppose if the sitter is pleased, that is the only thing that matters.

Here is an image, taken this morning, the way the camera remembers it, and then a bit closer to the way I remember it.....