This post is inspired by a set of posts on a friend’s blog, about the art and documentary value of photography. It’s easier for me to post my thoughts here, where I have a bit more room for the photos in the post.
The following two photos are, as you can see, mostly “the same.” Neither is the exact original as taken … the original dimensions were 2048 x 1536, while these have been reduced to a width of around 800 pixels so they will fit better on this web page. Other than that, no changes were made to the first of the two photos below … this is how it looked as it came out of the digital camera. The second photo was modified. Like the first, the width was modified for this web page (I should note that the width modifications in both cases are done by the software that posts to the blog … they are uploaded in their larger size, but presented to you in the more manageable smaller size). The second photo was cropped to 1680 x 1050 prior to uploading, which is the size of my monitor. This changes the aspect ratio … it’s “shorter” than the original, making it roughly like a widescreen TV while the original is more like old-school TVs. The cropping was done by removing a tiny bit from the bottom of the original, and a much larger selection of the blue sky at the top. I also performed some other adjustments … it’s been a long time since I took this picture and I don’t remember exactly what I did, but based on what I see here, it appears I lightened it and sharpened it. This makes the photo look slightly “unreal” … when people see it in its full 1680 x 1050 size, they usually comment on how it looks a bit like an artist’s rendition of an architectural model, rather than like an actual street with buildings.
One more thing. While the second photo was cropped to create a different aspect ratio, the original photo was taken with that aspect ratio in mind. I wanted the picture to be 1.6:1 to match my monitor, but my camera doesn’t have that exact setting. So I take the photos big enough to allow me to crop down, and plan this when taking the photo … so the expanse of blue sky at the top of the original is there in large part to give me space to crop. That is to say, my intentions were never to have a bunch of blue sky at the top of the photo … I was planning ahead, knowing the limitations of my tools.
I should also add that I’m not a very good photographer, and this photo is a lucky accident as much as anything. Maybe one out of 500 of my pictures are this good.
So, which of these two photos is “better”?

Recent Comments