On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 07:12:48PM -0400, John Sessoms wrote: > > There's a continuum of purpose for photographic images. That purpose > matters in so far as the ethics of manipulation. Context is important. > > At the PJ end, manipulation of the image is UN-ETHICAL, although most > images will be tweaked to some degree - levels, contrast, curves - to > make up for the deficiencies of the camera or the photographer's nerve. > It makes the image more viewable. > > I'm cool with that as long as nothing is removed or added that wasn't in > the original scene. > > Photojournalism should be reportage, not editorial comment. The image > should be as "true" as possible to the scene the photojournalist was > attempting to capture.
That's too dogmatic for me (even though I'm at the PJ end of the scale). I'll edit an image to remove distracting elements as long as they are only peripheral to the story being told - telegraph wires, a garish item in the background, an extraneous hand visible at the edge of the frame .. In other words I might edit to achive the image I was *attempting* to capture, even if I didn't actually achieve that image in-camera. -- 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.
