Hi Jostein On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:29:54 +0200, "AlunFoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 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.
Yes - that was careless! Cheers Brian ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > 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 - The way an email service should be -- 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.
