Frank, I think you've summed up most of the responses in those 65 posts pretty well!
Cheers Brian ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:17:31 -0400, "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:34 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? > <snip> > > So I turn on my computer on Monday morning at work and see this thread > of some 65 posts! I'm sure what I'm about to say has been covered and > discussed to death, but here's my take. > > At one extreme you've got PJ shots - shots that purport to be "truth" > (whatever the hell that means!). I say that beyond cropping and > "cleaning up" stuff that the camera/lens added (dust and hot pixels > and the like) you don't do a thing. No cloning in or out. > > At the other extreme, you've got "art photos", which are there to look > pretty (or at least they are there to present someone's "artistic > vision" - whatever the hell that means). Not much turns on whether > something has been put in/taken out/altered in any way. Whatever > truth they're conveying is contained within the image, they're not > there to portray some truth external to the artist/viewer/image. At > least not always. > > And then there's all the other stuff in between. I guess what's right > or wrong is situational and has to be dealt with on a case by case > basis. > > It comes down to what the photographer would want the viewer to > believe, and how it's presented. > > cheers, > frank > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > -- > 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. -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin -- 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.
