Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"In our attempts to imbue that nostalgic warmth, we miss the real reason we treasure our old photos: they’re artefacts, hard-copy memories of our lives. Their true value is in the way they make us feel — a good photo can take us back to the place it was taken, and invoke in us the feeling we had at the time. That’s something no filter, no matter how brilliantly implemented, can ever recreate for us."

Which is it? Are photos meant to be hard-copy memories (which I mean to read faithful reproductions of the place/time) or is their true value the way they make us feel? If it's the latter, than the hard-copy memory part is bullshit. If the vignette+cross-process filter helps me remember the depression of that rainy day better, isn't that valuable? If the high-key filter makes me better remember just how glorious that summer day was, isn't that a great thing?

If you're a photojournalist, I don't want you photoshopping in some extra smoke in your shots of Gaza. I do want as accurate a representation of the real scene as I can get with a 2d medium. But if you're 99.99% of the population who isn't a photojournalist shooting for a news outlet, I want to know how the situation felt. If that requires some filters or some photoshopping, fine.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: