When it comes to the content of photographs, you’ll find that there are two major styles that each of the photographic genres fall into. There are realistic photographs, and then there are idealized photographs. Of course, genres jump between these two categories. For instance, you can have both realistic landscapes and more fantastical landscapes. But, no matter what type of photograph you look at, it will doubtless fall into one of these two categories, either
the realistic or the fantastical.
With these two classifications comes a debate that is as old as post-processing. Which is better? Fantasy or reality? There are photographers on both sides of this divide, people who will argue strongly for one or the other. The realists will say that the very essence of photography is the ability to record exactly what is before the lens, and it’s the realism that sets the photographed image apart from all other art mediums. Then there are those who say there is
nothing all wrong with the fantastical image, that many images are made simply because they’re pleasing to the eye, and if they break the rules of reality, so be it.
And then there is the majority of photographers. For most of us, realistic images and idealized ones are both acceptable. There is value in all photographic styles, and it depends on a variety of things, from the tastes and vision of the artist to the setting, subject material and more. Since there is no one “right” style, let’s broaden the discussion on both realistic and idealized photographic styles so that you can see examples of each, how to produce them, and
the value inherent to both styles.