Bill wrote: At the same time, there is that which we are willing to accept as a truthful representation, even though it cannot be unaltered and still be something we can hold in our hands and say "this really sucks"
What you guys are saying is that if you have an insurance claim, you might as well Photoshop in some more damage since the evidence picture isn't the truth anyway. Have a spat with your boyfriend? Just Photoshop in a black eye and make it look like he split your lip and knocked out a couple of teeth. Get that f#cker sent to jail for bringing home Pepperoni and mushroom rather than ham and pineapple. He won't make that mistake twice. It doesn't matter, since whatever you use as evidence is a lie anyway. ---- Now you know that's not what I'm saying. In that image of interest, if a bloody body was photo-shopped out or in, that would be crossing the line, especially if it was supposed to DOCUMENT the scene at that place at that point in time. If the image is not meant to document something, but instead be illustrative, then removing or cropping a distracting item does not alter the message any more than panning the camera alters the message. In the case of the image in question, the superfluous video camera was never part of the intended message to begin with. Tom C. -- 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.
