Paul Stenquist wrote:
>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. > Taking out a whole tree stump goes a bit beyond "retouching" Given Brian's stated purpose in his photo essay, I think he either should have left the stump in or just not used the photo. His essay is documentary. Jostein made the point nicely. I definitely cant get into people manipulating out or adding images to photos of places that actually exist even for " art " - I'm not even too crazy about double exposures of moons and clouds and such - though those ephemeral things don't affect the sense of where you are. But letting the viewer know that something is or isnt manipulated to the point of adding or removing objects, especially in a subtle way, is a good thing. I think its fun to play in photoshop and take stuff way beyond the original - and I've done it as you guys know, but no one would be apt to confuse my cartooned scrabblers or jazzed up motorcycle guy with reality. >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: > > > -- 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.
