At 03:23 PM 10/13/1999 +0200, you wrote:
>
>A lovely picture, indeed. The light on the water is very, very nice.
>
>Your picture does raise an interesting topic, however, and that is if it's
>allowed to enhance pictures digitally where it comes down to actually
>adding/removing things in the image.
>
snip
>
>What's the list's opinion on this? Do we allow such manipulation, or don't
>we?
Yes, interesting topic. Frankly, I don't see how we can know to stop it.
Depends on the honor system, etc. But it also depends on taste: if it
looks bad, who wants it? if it looks good, who should object? Actually,
Jeff's manipulation is a simple burn in and I can't imagine anyone
objecting to this technique in conventional darkroom work, so why in a
digital darkroom? I don't "manipulate" digital prints to anything like the
same extent as I used to manipulate prints in the darkroom. When someone
recommends my looking at an "unmanipulated scan" I always wonder "Why would
I want to look at an unmanipulated scan? Would I ask anyone to look at a
proof print on a #1 paper?" I don't want to see the vagaries of someone's
scanner output, I want to see their visualization realized in some final,
presentable form. But I stray from the point.
If someone actually felt he could justify the statement that he had
pre-visualized a photograph with an element digitally removed, I don't
think I would feel violated by its being presented as a "fine print."
Remember the "moons in the refrigerator" pamphlet that Kodak issued years
ago? If a double-exposed moon looks OK, should I cry foul?
My $.02/IMHO/gasbag alert/etc.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< 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 >
|