Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] RE: editing ethics & ADITL information

Subject: [OM] RE: editing ethics & ADITL information
From: Olaf Greve <Ogreve@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:51:05 +0100
Hi,

> It was interesting how vehemently the list tended to disagree with this
> view when it was discussed previously in connection with ADITL.. 

When going through the messages regarding the digital manipulation, I
couldn't help but remembering the same discussion that was going on then.

Typically I myself am a bit against digital manipulation when things are
editted in/out of the picture, but as was pointed out then, it's difficult
to draw the line as to what is allowed and what isn't.

In my own picture gallery I had to use the "sharpen" effect on virtually all
scans I made, just to make the pictures look more or less like the original.
The scanner I used for my pictures seems to be mediocre at best, and
consequently some pictures (most noticeably so "Harmony" and "Fiery leaves"
- http://members.xoom.com/olaf_greve ) simply look terrible. I had to tweak
these pictures so much that a lot of detail got lost, and the colours at
times are pretty much off in some parts. The same (albeit to a lesser
extent) happened to the "Goodnight Amsterdam" picture, in the real print the
clouds are equally spectacular, but the colours are a bit more yellowish
overall. However, trying to digitally get it more yellow, resulted in a
picture which looked nowhere near the original. So again, where to draw the
line?

Now, how this all applies to ADITL events etc.: The script I wrote allows
for adding/removing of comments as desired. I propose that if people used
heavy digital manipulation (I'll leave it up to them to be the judge, but
I'm not referring to some simple cropping and/or brightness/contrast
corrections, etc.) that they add a description of what they did, like:

Digital manipulations:
The UFO in the picture was added digitally, in the original there was no
alien activity whatsoever. Likewise, in the original Fox Mulder is not
actually chasing the UFO.


Still, I'm not going to demand people to do so. If they want to add such a
description, that's fine with me, and if they don't, then that's fine with
me too.

Then the question Buddy Walters asked about the ADITL timeframe:
> I was wondering why the short time frame?  Would it be possible to have
> it open to take pictures for the full 3 months prior to submission /
> solstice dates?

The answer to this is simple: ADITL stand for A _Day_ In the life, and not
for "Three months in the life", this is why it was decided that the ADITL
event timeframes should be short (officially one day - so as to capture what
all of use saw world wide on that very day -, but this what relaxed somewhat
to one week to allow everyone enough time to get some decent weather
conditions, etc.).

The next picture taking event will have the shooting date around February
21st (mark your calendars!), and will be based around another theme than
ADITL (details will be posted soon). So maybe we can allow for a longer
shooting period then, like 3 weeks or so.

Cheers!
Olafo

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz