David, This is a sticky ethical area. Your own moral compass need to help guide
you. Before digital it was considered OK to pin branches back to clean up a
fore or background. I would think you are OK on this it doesn't change the over
all context of the picture. I also think labeling it is important.
Kevin
David Young <dnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All:
I recently posted my shot of a Male Grosbeak, asking for comments and
criticism. Mark Bohrer, of the LEG (the only other list I post to) commented,
saying: "And watch out for those pesky background branches. ;)"
He has a valid point... So I experimented and removed the "pesky background
branches" using photoshop's clone and heal tools. I think the shot looks a lot
better.
To compare the two, go to http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr and then click on
'featured photo'.
To compare the modified shot, simply click on the photo itself. The modified
photo is clearly marked. Even on dial up, once the second photo has loaded,
you can almost instantly compare the two by clicking on the photos... the shots
will toggle back and forth quite nicely.
My question to you is: Is this ethical?
In my recently posted "eagle in the snow" shot I'd removed some extraneous
branch tips shooting in from the right. However, these did not actually touch
the subject, and removing these extraneous elements was, to me, no different
than if I dodged them out during the printing of a silver print.
Here, the changes are much more fundamental to the character of the original
photo.
In the minds of those here, is this ethical? Would you alter a photo this much
and still call it yours? Where is the boundary?
Thanks for your thoughts.... personally, I don't know just what to think!
Best,
David.
----------
David Young, | égalité, liberté,
Victoria, CANADA | fraternité et Beaujolais.
Personal Web-site at:
http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr
Leica Reflex Forum web-page:
http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
