Bob W wrote:
Bullshit.
I'm a nature photographer. I love beauty in nature. I go down to the
local dump and find a nasty garbage-infested, oil-stained, mercury-laden
pond and see.. I don't know, a Great Egret wading amongst some reeds
with the sun setting just-so, side-lighting the bird's resplendent
white-plumage, enhancing every feather detail in glorious mating
display. I trip the shutter, making sure to not include the cans
floating in the oil-slick and dead, rotting fish to the left of the
bird. The picture wins a national competition promoted by the Sierra
Club dedicated to protecting our wild lands.
Is this an honest photograph worthy of winning such a competition? Have
I manipulated the viewer?
--
Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/
The act of taking the photograph is an act of manipulation and is
therefore always "dishonest"
YOU CHOOSE what to include in every photograph you take and what to
exclude. YOU CHOOSE the angle it is shot from. YOU CHOOSE
the subject
matter, etc etc etc.
All these CHOICES are "manipulating" the photograph and telling the
story that YOU want to tell.
Whether you do it by composition, in photoshop, or in the darkroom,
EVERY photograph is "dishonest."
--
Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/
Nick Wright wrote:
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?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Bruce Dayton
<[email protected]> wrote:
Isn't just changing the lens or the angle that you take the shot,
changing the perspective? It would seem that if altering the photo
after the shot bothers you, then altering the photo before the shot
should to. Just different methods of accomplishing the same basic
thing.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 5:06:20 AM, you wrote:
NW> Thanks to all the folks who took time to comment on
this last PESO of
NW> mine. I do appreciate the critiques.
NW> One item I'd like to touch on is the concept of
software perspective
NW> control. I'd been thinking about this recently before
I'd posted my
NW> PESO and then Brian brought it up in his critique of my image.
NW> I'm just amazed at how fast technology changes. The
last time I was an
NW> active member of this list (granted that was 8 years
ago) the only way
NW> to achieve perspective control was with a view camera
or shift lens.
NW> Now you can get something of the same effect using photoshop.
NW> I don't currently have any software with the ability
to "correct"
NW> perspective, but an older laptop of mine had Elements
2 which did. I
NW> played around with it a bit but never could really get
my heart into
NW> it.
NW> I think it mainly has to do with all those years at
the newspaper. Any
NW> alteration of a photograph like that just makes me cringe.
NW> I'm curious to hear more of you all's opinions on the process?
NW> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Brian Walters
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nice composition but the tower gets a bit lost in the
background sky.
Also, I'd try a bit of perspective correction to make
the verticals
vertical and the horizontals, er...horizontal. It may not be an
improvement but worth investigating.
Cheers
Brian
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:52 -0500, "Nick Wright"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another PESO:
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/church-tower-2/
Comment welcome and appreciated.
--
~Nick David Wright
http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/
--
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
