Since I manage my own photo intensive website, I find that my poor scanner
just is not capable of properly reproducing the original. I need to
manipulate the photos as much as possible to get them closer to original,
but still is not enough. There is no need to tell anybody anything, no
matter how good someone can make it look.
Even professional artists who rake in 7-8 digit incomes do not reveal their
secrets completely. Based on their success, I would hazard to guess that
they are generally not considered "unethical".
Let the image stand for itself, no matter how it got there!
Even if it was completely computer generated, without being camera based to
begin with,
it obviously took some talent by somebody to get that way, maybe not
photographic talent, but I doubt whether that is a problem with most viewers
of the image. No description of how it got that way needs to be presented.
Since I am not even in the amateur class of photobugs, but simply a novice,
maybe I am not as sensitive about this as others who make a living from it,
but maybe that's exactly the viewpoint that is needed to have a touch of
reality about this.
Catmaster>
> 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.
>
.> Finally my question is this:
> AM I THE ONLY ONE ASKING HOW MUCH ONE CAN EDIT AN IMAGE, BEFORE IT'S TIME
TO
> TELL THE BEHOLDER?
> Am I the only one noticing this in Ron's images?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Regards
> Tobias Andersson
> Halmstad, Sweden.
.
< 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 >
|