In fine art or personal photography, any PhotoShop work that makes for a better photograph is acceptable and, IMO, commendable. If photography is an art, why should the artist's endeavors end when the shutter closes? Suggesting that he or she must refrain from retouching is just just nonsense. Although if purists choose to present only their recorded images, that's okay as well. There is no wrong way to make art or personal photographs.
Photojournalism is another matter. Your example of the Iranian missiles falls into that category. Journalists report news. The retouching of a news photograph is unacceptable. It's simple. Paul On Aug 16, 2008, at 3:34 AM, Brian Walters wrote: > 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. -- 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.
