On 23/01/2014 2:08 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
I am not seeing what was the problem in what he did.
The modification he did did not change the purpose of the photo or
whatever the photo presents.
It brings back the question of what is and what is not "manipulation" of
the photo. As "burning and dodging" is also image manipulation and
modification.
While I understand that one can defined the modification of an image
when the actual pixels are replaced/moved.
But what if he just darkened some portion of the photo with an object in
it so that the object is deep in a shadow, and hence cannot be seen on the
photo? That's not moving of the pixels, but just changing the levels
on a part of the photograph.
I understand the problem when a person is removed from a group photo,
but that's totally different.
I think in this particular case, they are making a mountain out of a
molehill.
A couple of things:
1) It's a matter of principal. It's a news photo, and thusly should be
as unmanipulated as possible.
2) Where is the slippery slope? When does it become not OK to make
manipulations? Are we OK with not knowing if an image we are being
presented with is a representation of the real thing or not?
We aren't talking about a family portrait where we expect Aunt Maude to
look 10 years younger, and any manipulation that alters our perception
of the image is wrong, plain and simple. This includes extreme contrast
manipulation, extreme dodging and burning, removing or adding subject
matter, in fact anything that is done with the intention of obscuring
what was actually in front of the camera.
For myself, even using really long or really short focal lengths to
alter the image from a normal perspective can be an excessive manipulation.
bill
--
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.
