AlunFoto wrote:
>A true landscape photographer should never be far away from his chainsaw. > Darn, I Knew I was doing something wrong! >Your photoshopping is entirely acceptable from one POV, and totally >wrong from another. It depends on the intended use of the photo. For >hanging on a wall it doesn't matter. For documentation of illegal >logging it does. > Good point - it sounded like Brian's photo essay did have something to do with enviromental considerations to me. >It's a job well done, btw. I missed the original PESOs. To make the >take 2 version perfect, you could consider aligning the implanted >waves to point in the same direction as the others. That's the only >thing that gives the manipulation away. > >Jostein > I saw the second before the first - and his skill at doing the manipulation drove home the point to me. And I didn't notice the water until you mentioned it... I liked the articles Robb pointed to on the web. Ann > >2008/8/16 Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>Hi all >> >>This may have been discussed previously but I thought it might be worth >>canvassing PDMLers' views, in the light of Ann's comments on my recent >>"Stumped - Take 2" PESO. >> >>I think most people would regard the recent "Iran Missile" fiasco as >>being in the "way too much" category and a few journalists have got >>themselves into strife in recent years by 'sexing up' news images. >>Although photography has always been a weapon of propaganda, well before >>the digital age, these are distorting history and can't be justified. >> >>At the other extreme, removing the odd dust spot or maybe a distracting >>leaf or branch would probably be regarded as being OK by most people. >> >>But what about the middle ground - when do we step over the line? >> >>I'll offer my two PESO's as examples (these aren't wonderful images but >>they serve to illustrate the point): >> >>http://www.blognow.com.au/PESO/95749/Stumped.html >>http://www.blognow.com.au/PESO/95818/Stumped_-_Take_2.html >> >>Even the first one had some photoshopping - I removed some intrusive >>branches on the left. It never occurred to me to mention this in the >>original post. Should I have mentioned it? >> >>The second one was more drastic and involved removal of a stump on the >>left. This was suggested by Paul, and others seemed to agree that it >>was acceptable (and an improvement). Ann, however, thought I'd gone too >>far. In retrospect, I think Ann is probably right in this case. I have >>changed what is there and, as I intend using the image in a 'River >>Environs' project, I probably should use the original for that project. >> >>As a pure image, however, taken out of the "River Environs' context, the >>second image 'works better', in my opinion. >> >>So what do you think - not specifically about these images but as a >>general view. Even the great photographers of the past weren't shy when >>it came to 'improving' images - a dodge and burn here; a replacement sky >>there.... I sometimes wonder what some of the great photographers of >>the past would have thought about Photoshop, had they been alive to use >>it. In many >>cases, I'm sure they would have regarded it as another useful tool to >>help in >>their craft. >> >> >>Cheers >> >>Brian >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>Brian Walters >>Western Sydney Australia >>http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ >> >>-- >> >> >>-- >>http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>PDML@pdml.net >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >>the directions. >> >> >> > > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
