Doug Franklin wrote: > William Robb wrote: > >> Photography isn't about reality anyway. Everyone has a point of view, >> whether their intent is artistic, journalistic or any other [...] > > Well, that's really the quandry, actually. Which way do I want to > present the images ... more artistic or more journalistic. I'm still > deciding. > I tend to consider my photographs a document of what was visible within the frame when I pressed the little button. As such I rarely remove anything other than dust. I don't recall ever adding anything to a photo. But Bill's right. Altering photographs is not a sin so long as you don't claim they weren't altered. I do think the nature of the photograph and it's intended audience should help you decide.
A while back Shel presented us with a photo taken in a diner back in the 60s or 70s. The menu, with prices, was visible, as were a few people (clothing, hair, etc. all fit the time frame). There was also a napkin holder on a counter which quite a few of the folks around here thought detracted from the photograph. Shel was encouraged to remove it and he eventually did. I still think of this photo as an historical document that should not have been tampered with in that manner. On the other hand, if you're looking to print something pretty for the living room wall, have at it. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
