On 24/4/04, MALCOLM, discombobulated, offered: >How far is photographic manipulation acceptable and true to the image taken? > >Quite honestly, if you need to go to lengths in Photoshop or whatever, >you've taken the wrong picture.
Re-entering this one late, so apologies if you've already been pulled to pieces over it ;-) I'm not sure what you mean by 'go to lengths' in Photoshop. I assume you mean by extended tweaking such as increasing colour saturation or darkening a sky? In what way is this any different from including a graduated filter on the front of the lens during the taking? If HCB or Doisneau did indeed ask some of their subjects to kiss or embrace, ostensibly to conjure up a better shot, is that taking the wrong picture? As I mentioned before, I think every photographer has their own limits, their own scruples that they operate by, and quite rightly. But surely, to each their own? I can't see how any picture, any photograph, and drawing, any piece of art, whatever, can be right or wrong. But that's my own personal opinion :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
