On 24 Nov 2005 at 19:55, Adam Maas wrote: > Tom Reese wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet > >trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning. > > > >FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and > >interclub > >competitions. That type of manipulation is against the rules. We do have > >separate digital categories where that type of manipulation is permitted. > > > >Tom Reese
> That's interesting. You do realize that you would thus exclude much of > Ansel Adams work then, right? Such manipulations are darkroom standards. > In fact, back in the early days of photograpy, putting a new sky into a > print was de rigeur because of the problems of plate emulsions that were > only really sensitive to blue light (pre-Orthocromatic emulsions, let > alone modern panchromatic film) and thus you blew out the sky on any > shot of the landscape. Printers kept around stocks of sky images to > provide a sky to landscape shots. Which also raises the question: where do polarizing, graduated or colour filters figure in the equation of what does and doesn't make a nature shot? 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
