Hi all This has been an interesting thread. Thanks to everyone who responded.
Bob's response (below) was typical of many although I probably subscribe to Paul's view regarding personal photography (also below). I think that everyone agrees that there should be no intention to deceive. Anyway, for my little "river" project, which may or may not end up on the web, I'll be using the original of my "Stumped" images (they may only be tree stumps but they are identifiable). If I want to print a version for my own use, I'll probably use the photoshopped version. Cheers Brian ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:07:44 -0500, "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Brian, > > It's a hard call. > I like the photoshopped picture. It is more pleasing than the original. > But it troubles me knowing it is 'photoshopped'. > > I expect paintings to be paintings and photos to be photos. > I expect paintings to be a truly imaginary concoction, > perhaps based on real life but without strict rules on veracity. > I expect photos to be mostly a capture of a real scene, > perhaps manipulated a little bit, but with a lot of faithfulness to > the original scene. > With enough manipulation, photos stop being photos and become another art > form. > Perhaps photo montage would be the right name for them. > > Your question stirs the pot on the whole issue. > I expect paintings(etc) to be beautiful or moving in composition, > colors, ideas overall. > I expect photos to be beautiful for the capture of a real scene, real > light, real detail. > It becomes a matter of expectations. > In the painting(etc) art world, we suspend expectations of perfect > representation > and enjoy the other aspects of the work. > In the photo world, I expect the picture is highly representational of > what you can see. > (Of course artists blur these lines in 1,000 different ways, with > painted canvases that > look like photos and photos that look like paintings.) > > But for me, I like to look at photos and think that they show something > real and > marvel at how the photographer was able to get the shot. > > (Next time, take the chain saw!) ;-) > > Regards, Bob S. On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:28:50 -0400, "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 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 Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 - Access your email from home and the web -- 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.
