A photograph is never more trustworthy than the photographer who took it.
That certainly is true in forsensic photography.
A 'good' lawyer in trial would always ask the expert if the photographs he's
opining on are a true & accurate representation of the evidence when he
reviewed it.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message -----
From: "AlunFoto" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Ethics of Manipulation (was: Re: Perspective control (was:
PESO:Church tower))
2009/3/11 AlunFoto <[email protected]>:
Is this an honest photograph worthy of winning such a competition? Have I
manipulated the viewer?
If the photograph is so well cooked that it fools the jury, then of
course it is worthy.
Not so with the photographer. It takes a human to produce a lie like that.
Jostein
Bit of a cocky answer there. My point is that it's the entry into a
competition for preservation of wildlife habitat that is the problem.
Not the manipulation.
A photograph is never more trustworthy than the photographer who took it.
Jostein
--
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.
