Yes, reality is hard to define. There is a potential for gray areas. So I'm not trying to define it. Kinda like pornography. I should be able to recognize it when I see it. But by editing out my tree to present an image that does not reflect what was REALLY there is dishonest. Please note that I'm not talking about cropping or over/under-exposing the negative or print, which simply presents another perspective on reality (I can't see as well at night, but the tree's still there). If you want honesty in manipulated photographs, do what Frank did with this one: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3175020 At least he's being honest about lying to me. A simple disclaimer such as "This is a manipulated image" would be nice, as well. I think this is a decent guide if you're not sure: http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
On 6/19/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is reality? You know, you don't even need a camera to argue about this. > I believe it was Socrates and Plato who started it, or at least the first > ones to write about it. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
