On 17 Jun 2005 at 20:13, Paul Stenquist wrote: > You're right. The same word was used in typesetting. But it has > migrated to several visual arts fields. It's quite common in filmmaking > as well as in still photography.
Warning: Scattered thoughts follow. I think the term "collage" is appropriate as most definitions suggest that it means to copy and paste visual elements in order to produce a whole, it used to be physical pasting in a digital context it's virtual pasting. A "composite" in photographic terms is exactly the same thing according to most definitions. Of course as photographers we all know what goes into making an image and how we can manipulate the scene regardless of the integrity of the medium. Everybody has their personal limitations as to what constitutes an unmanipulated image. However there are certain types of imagery that must remain as unmanipulated as possible such as forensics, crash investigation, medical procedure documentation, aerial mapping etc. Many of these types of images also require certification from the photographer as to their integrity. Photographers in mainstream reportage are obliged under ethical standards to indicate if an image has undergone manipulation but it's still up to the photographer (or editor) to determine what degree of manipulation is acceptable or worth reporting. However any image that is of a purely artistic (and that includes advertising) nature has no legal constraints, an indication from the author as to the degree of manipulation that the image has undergone isn't mandatory (this doesn't mean that an advertiser couldn't get into trouble for gross misrepresentation either). Nor is the definition of photography something that is set in stone, generally it means a picture made with a camera. I am happy to let other photographers know what work if any I have undertaken on any image, sometimes I volunteer the information other times the edit is so subtle as to be virtually indiscernible unless the viewer is directed so I don't consider that anyone would benefit from the information. General viewers either like an image or they don't, some might be interested that it has or hasn't been manipulated but most couldn't care less. The issue of indicating whether an image is manipulated or unmanipulated is addressed to some extent on the photo.net site: http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation.html Ahh that feels better. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
