There's fiction and nonfiction in writing. (Given the season, I'll mention politics, which isn't even fiction.) Roughly, many consider painting and photography the visual analogs. The problem is that nonfiction is rarely completely true, paintings can be realistic and photos can be manipulated. We're just better at it now.
I enjoy images when I look at them. Their relation to reality is another question. It may be an important question, but it's still not the same as appreciating the image. On a photography list like this, it's probably good to mention what you did because we are interested ion how the images are made. Steve Reader of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Tolkien. P.S. I went to the Jethro Tull 40th anniversary tour last week at Wolftrap National Park near DC. Ian can still caper with he best of them ;-) >>> "Brian Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/16/2008 3:34 AM >>> 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. !SIG:48a6832b235272116818696! -- 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.
