Well, I'll 'fess up. I don't think I can bear the thought of deceiving all you nice folk any longer <g>
One of my favorite flower shot's that I took earlier this year and posted for comment, had some Photoshop surgery, aside from levels & cropping. http://tinyurl.com/b25zx Who can spot it? Frankly I don't have any problem with doing a bit of a fix after the fact. Despite my best efforts I stuffed up when I took the shot (As I have done since, and will probably do again in the future). I couldn't re shoot because the light never had that quality again, and anyway the next day the flower had wilted and died so, <shudder> I "fixed it in Photoshop" According to some people this is now no longer a photograph. Well I don't care, I still like it :-) Dave On 6/19/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > The process by which a photo is created has nothing to do with ethics > > unless the photo is four new reporting purposes or some other field > > where accurate representation is important . For hobbyist/fine art > > photography it matters not a twit. By Tom's rationale, BW photography is > > dishonest, because the colors aren't real. Hogwash. > > Viewers assume that a photograph depicts reality. They've been trained > since childhood that a picture doesn't lie. The viewer assumes that the > scene actually existed and that the camera recorded it. When you present > doctored images to a viewer without telling him they're doctored then > you are being dishonest and you're damaging the credibility of all > photographers. > > A fooled viewer becomes a cynic when he finds out he's been fooled. My > pictures are real. I work damned hard at capturing the beauty of the > natural world. I do not want the viewer questioning my integrity because > he was exploited in the past. > > Tom Reese > > >
