>>3184617I'm not trying to show somebody what the digital sensor recorded, I'm trying to transport the viewer to that place. To make the feel what it was like. Most of the time when we're actually there we don't notice telephone poles, just the subject that caught our attention. Thinking that our experience of the scene is the same as the digital recording isn't accurate. We don't see every tiny detail on a flat plane, like cameras do. We get a general sense of the scene, usually studying the interesting part with our eyes and ignoring all the thousands of mundane details that we aren't focused on. Unfortunately cameras pick up all that dull stuff and put it front and center, in razor sharp detail. It's not as accurate of a representation of being there in person.
My personal philosophy goes even farther than that though. There's photojournalism, and there's the art of creating the best experience possible for the viewer. I'm in the latter category. All I care about is the experience the viewer will have when they look at my imagery. If I have to remove a telephone pole, replace the sky, or composite two cities together, I'll do it so the viewer has the most powerful visual experience/emotional response. Pretty much every print advertisement you see has been heavily manipulated to give the viewer the best experience. I care about creating powerful images that resonate with the viewer, transporting them to someplace beautiful, someplace that makes them feel something.
Had the attached image had crud floating in the water and one dead distracting tree, it wouldn't be as strong of an image. Had it included those details would it be accurate to what was in the scene? Definitely. Accurate to our perception of the scene at the time? I'd argue no. It's all up to you though. Depends on how much of the viewer's experience you're willing to sacrifice for the thought that details (that weren't even perceived at the time) have been altered.
