That kind of manipulation has always been considered appropriate, even in photojournalism. It's done in the interest of clarity, enhancing the subject without altering the original intent as presented by the original image.
S. Dimitrov
On Jan 11, 2005, at 10:40 AM, David Young wrote:
All:Slobodan Dimitrov
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
