Photography is more than just documentary/photojournalism. If it is truly
an art form, then all kinds of manipulation are allowed. If you can imagine
it, the do it. It is not everyone's cup of tea, nor should it be. But one
cannot lamblast one for doing it. However, as has been said, you should be
honest about it. And if a contest requires you to disclose manipulations,
you should do so. I've been know to take out a powerline or a bit of
trash, but if asked I will admit to it. The burning and dodging and
adjusting color/contrast, etc, I do not consider manipulation. If you are
shooting RAW, then you have to develop your image just like you did in a
darkroom. Is the zone system manipulation? Or is it trying to make a
limited medium respond the way your eye can see things. Your eye/brain
system is a marvelous capture device, and so far no film or sensor has
equaled it. So, of course you need to do some development to make the
capture device come close to what your eye can see. Compare a digital
sensor 15 years ago with one today. If you could take the same scene, it
would look very different right out of the camera. So, is the new sensor a
manipulation? Or is it just close to the eye w/o having to do any
development to the file? Is a JPEG from the camera considered manipulated?
The camera has applied all kinds of tweaks to a JPEG before you ever get to
see it. Newer sensors, especially the new Sony sensors, have so much
dynamic range you don't have to rely on HDR or large scale manipulations to
get a believable image.
OOps. Phone ringing. Got to go
Aram
-----Original Message-----
From: David Young
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 12:10 PM
To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [LRflex] Re: Faked Photos in the news...
G'Mornin' Bill!
Not sure why this should end the discussion, Bill. It is a problem for
Nikon (Singapore), for as I understand it, the chap who submitted the image
lied about the manipulation. When asked how long he had to wait for the
plane to pass overhead, he replied, "Not too long, I was lucky".
I'm with Howard. It's OK to play with a shot, so long as you admit to it.
After all, some magificent images can be made with PS and similar programs.
I you look at the shot in the article it is obvious, to me, that the shot
*had* to be manipulated. It is just too perfect to have been shot in real
life.
(In a way, photos are like investments. If it looks too good to be true, it
probably is.)
I guess the real discussion comes down to "do you want photographs to tell
the truth or be art?"
And, on that level, I'm with Ted. They should tell the truth.
Minor cleanups of background distractions via dodging or burning-in -
equivalent to what would be done in a wet-darkroom, are OK in my books. But
manipulations which remove or add key elements (such as adding the plane in
the Nikon shot, or moving the puck in Howard's alterations of my shot) go
too far.... unless you're honest about them, up front, as Howard was.
Others, of course, may have a different outlook on all of this.
Other takes? Anyone?
David.
--
David Young - President,
The Logan Lake TV Society.
Logan Lake, BC, CANADA
www.LLTVS.com
David,
Whoa!
What a way to end a discussion on the list!
Bill
On Jan 31, 2016, at 23:10, David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ted, Howard and all:
Nikon has just had to take a photo down, because despite winning one of their competitions, it was faked.
Today's BBC story on it, can be found here.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35457135
It seems a timely story, given the weekend's conversations, here.
David.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
