In a message dated 01/18/2000 12:54:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tox1@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I think it's a bit unethical to edit the images like you do - without
> telling the audience, that what they are seeing, isn't the original, but a
> fake one.
I think the word unethical is rather strong here. Most of the things which
are done in the digital darkroom are not really very different from what is
done in the chemical darkroom, it's just that they are easier to do, although
maybe not easier to do well.
Whether the artist decides to tell the audience how an image was made is
strictly up to the artist, in my opinion. Looking at the two photos of the
stone bridge, I assume you think the color one was modified by enhancing the
blue digitally? Could be, but I wouldn't automatically assume that. Perhaps a
color enhancing filter was used? Or maybe it's just a high saturation film?
I agree I would *like* to know the technique(s) used. And in a forum like
this it is maybe appropriate. But it's the artist's perogative whether or not
to reveal his or her secrets. I don't think it is unethical if he/she wants
to keep it a secret.
All IMHO, of course,
Paul who-doesn't-have-any-techniques-worth-keeping-a-secret-anyway Schings
< 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 >
|