But there is a school of thought that considers anything not portrayed "as found" as being manipulated.
Kenneth Waaller -----Original Message----- From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PAW - "Hatching Butterfly" --- "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that it's a great shot, and that changing > the background in > photoshop would be unnecessary. But why would it be > "a dishonest act"? > Wound it be different if one places a backdrop > behind the subject to > change the background color? Sorry, Dan (and everyone else), I should have put a smiley at the end of the "photoshopping is dishonest" comment. I was being tongue-in-cheek. It's just that since I choose not to manipulate my photos (why would one want to manipulate crap? <g>), I joke around about people who do. I don't want to start a flame war and/or huge discussion or thread about what sorts of manipulations are or aren't allowed, because, yes, I realize that choosing a lens and film is an editorial choice, as is cropping and dodging and burning, etc. I also don't want to start a war about what is an "honest" photo, and when we cross the line into dishonesty, etc. I was just joking, and you were right (especially in light of my non-smiley) to take me to task. But, really, I meant nothing by it. cheers, frank ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
