A true landscape photographer should never be far away from his chainsaw. Your photoshopping is entirely acceptable from one POV, and totally wrong from another. It depends on the intended use of the photo. For hanging on a wall it doesn't matter. For documentation of illegal logging it does.
It's a job well done, btw. I missed the original PESOs. To make the take 2 version perfect, you could consider aligning the implanted waves to point in the same direction as the others. That's the only thing that gives the manipulation away. Jostein 2008/8/16 Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi all > > This may have been discussed previously but I thought it might be worth > canvassing PDMLers' views, in the light of Ann's comments on my recent > "Stumped - Take 2" PESO. > > I think most people would regard the recent "Iran Missile" fiasco as > being in the "way too much" category and a few journalists have got > themselves into strife in recent years by 'sexing up' news images. > Although photography has always been a weapon of propaganda, well before > the digital age, these are distorting history and can't be justified. > > At the other extreme, removing the odd dust spot or maybe a distracting > leaf or branch would probably be regarded as being OK by most people. > > But what about the middle ground - when do we step over the line? > > I'll offer my two PESO's as examples (these aren't wonderful images but > they serve to illustrate the point): > > http://www.blognow.com.au/PESO/95749/Stumped.html > http://www.blognow.com.au/PESO/95818/Stumped_-_Take_2.html > > Even the first one had some photoshopping - I removed some intrusive > branches on the left. It never occurred to me to mention this in the > original post. Should I have mentioned it? > > The second one was more drastic and involved removal of a stump on the > left. This was suggested by Paul, and others seemed to agree that it > was acceptable (and an improvement). Ann, however, thought I'd gone too > far. In retrospect, I think Ann is probably right in this case. I have > changed what is there and, as I intend using the image in a 'River > Environs' project, I probably should use the original for that project. > > As a pure image, however, taken out of the "River Environs' context, the > second image 'works better', in my opinion. > > So what do you think - not specifically about these images but as a > general view. Even the great photographers of the past weren't shy when > it came to 'improving' images - a dodge and burn here; a replacement sky > there.... I sometimes wonder what some of the great photographers of > the past would have thought about Photoshop, had they been alive to use > it. In many > cases, I'm sure they would have regarded it as another useful tool to > help in > their craft. > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class > > > -- > 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. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
