Tobias,
I strongly disagree. My (self assigned) role as a photographer is to
produce an image for viewing (by you, the list, just myself, etc.) that
conveys what I choose to convey. Whether I manipulate camera, film,
subject, lighting, processing, printing, Photoshop, hitting the negs with a
hammer, etc., is strictly my choice and within my area of responsibility.
I can and will do whatever it takes to produce the image I want.
Taking your statement a bit further, included in this "fake" product would
be the use of super-saturated films such as Velvia, the use of black and
white films (my world happens to be in color), and the usage of flash,
reflectors, or anything other than sunlight, the only "real" light.
The only time I care _how_ someone arrives at an image is when I want to
emulate them. Other than that, I enjoy the portrayal of the photographer's
vision as I see it, without regard to how he got there.
Dave
On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:14 AM, Tobias Andersson
[SMTP:tox1@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> HOWEVER.
> Seeing your pictures, I'm surprised that the rest of the list doesn't
react!
> You have manipulated most of your pictures using Photoshop, right?
> For instance:
> http://caesar.bizland.com/places/stonebrdg.jpg
> http://caesar.bizland.com/places/stnbrdg.jpg
> These are both the same image, but edited with a program like Photoshop.
The
> colored one has been changed quite a lot, I think.
>
> 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.
< 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 >
|
