Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Nov 24, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Tom Reese wrote: > >> I have a different opinion. Manipulated images are fake and I think >> it's wrong to deceive the viewer. I don't want to start another >> argument. It's a difference of opinion and we've already covered >> this ground in previous threads. > >Define what you mean by "manipulated image".
I'd be more interested in what is meant by "deceiving the viewer". Some have complained that Ansel Adams' wasn't truthful because of all the darkroom manipulation he did. They were mistaken because of a fundamental misunderstanding: Adams wasn't trying to convey what he *saw* in his photographs, he was trying to express what he *felt* when looking at the scene. His works were less deceptive than straight prints would have been. An unmanipulated image is not inherently better (or worse) than a manipulated one than any more than a non-fiction piece of writing is better than a novel or a poem. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
