[LRFlex] Re: A question of ethics...
- From: Kevin Mayo <mayokevin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:31:12 -0800 (PST)
More or less what I was trying to say.
Kevin
David Young <dnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 1/11/2005, you wrote:
>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
Hi Kevin!
What? Me? A moral compass? Certainly, sir, you jest! ;-)
Having thought much about this, and read what folks here and on the LEG
have said, I believe I'm with you...
This all started with my Eagle in the snow shot, posted a week or so
ago. It was cropped out of a larger shot (OK) but this left some small
tips of branches intruding from the right hand side. I removed them, the
same way I'd dodge them out when making a silver print. It improved the
composition yet did not alter the habitat or otherwise alter the effect of
the photo.
And, when I posted it, I labeled it as such.
Mark Bohrer's comment about the 'pesky branches' in the background is what
prompted me to try to remove them. And here, I agree with Doug. If the
photo was to be used to illustrate the bird (as in a birding guide) then
it's OK, because it enhances the clarity of the subject. But if it's to
illustrate almost anything else, it would be a no-no.
Thanks for your thoughts. They're good ones!
----------
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
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Other related posts:
