Nick, these are just my 2 cents... I think no photo is either honest or dishonest. Only a photographer that can have such virtues... If _you_ feel dishonest for presenting the photo, then take the morally appropriate decision on what to do with your work. Put it in the bit bucket and forget it is one alternative. Presenting it as is, no questions asked, is another. Go to the same place and obtain a rendering that is more true to your perception is yet another.
To me, as a viewer with no chance to check your "facts", the only thing that matters is whether the presentation is believable. If you can, by choice of perspective, exposure etc. or by your post-processing, make me believe in your presentation, then you have succeded in telling a story. sincerely, Jostein 2009/3/10 Nick Wright <[email protected]>: > Yes, it is. But somewhere along the line I came to view one as > "honest" and the other as "dishonest." > > Not that it's that simple though. Because I think that a "straight" > photo can be dishonest as well. > > Which is something that I've also been thinking about in regards to my > original photo. I like my shot quite a bit, but I cycled past that > church again the other day and I realized that it is not an honest > photo. > > The reason I believe that is because in the photo the tower appears to > be much taller than the rest of the building, when in reality the roof > line to the right of the tower in the photo is higher. > > I didn't think about it when I shot it, and then I didn't think about > it when I got the negs back. > > So what do you all think about that? > -- 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.
