Wayne wrote:
> Olafo wrote:
>
> > What's the list's opinion on this? Do we allow such
> > manipulation, or don't we?
>
> I say we allow any manipulation that the maker wants. If you allow only
> some manipulation, where do you draw the line ?
ADITL2 is a special case, as the idea is to work *within* the
capabilities of the camera and lens, rather than working around them,
but in the general case my view would be that you *must* draw the
line at *misrepresenting* the subject.
For example, if I take a picture of a nearly-deserted beach, and then
use Photoshop to remove one or two distant figures, I am not deceiving
the viewer about how the beach looked other than in the *most* literal
sense (I could conceivably have achieved the same picture by asking
the people to move).
However, if I also erase a car-park, some picnic tables and a toilet
blockhouse, then I am guilty of representing the beach as being
unspoilt when in fact it is not.
For me there's a big difference between these two cases, and
'misrepresentation' best defines the line between them.
Other examples, such as that of filling a blank sky with clouds from a
different picture, are a bit harder to call, but these questions have
always dogged photography, digital techniques just make it easier to
'hide the joins'.
George S. also asked:
> But if we are allowing critique of the images, isn't the best software
> program, and/or computer operator going to shine, and not necessarily
the
> best *photographer* ?
Assuming that we're talking about adjustment rather than alteration,
in a conventional photographic group exhibition you could also
complain that the best darkroom worker had an unfair advantage, or the
person with access to the best lab. It's the nature of the medium.
-Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|