main

This is an interesting issue. But at the same time it is one that I think gets over toguhht on occasion. I say it depends If an image is being used to represent something, say a location or product, for advertising then I believe there needs to be a degree of truthfulness' to it.I know that most images used in advertising are really far from where they began. And your question applies, how far is too far?In an image that represents news or is used in news should be pretty much as shot. Of course you can make some minor adjustments to it as you would if printing in a dark room.In the case of the images of the Queen I don't know that it is necessary to put any limitations on what can be done. If the same scene was to be painted by an artist the resulting portrait would really be a complete manifestation of the artists view of the scene.So if a photographer is shooting a portrait of a person where is the rule that limits them to a straight from the camera shot. I don't think there needs to be one.Maybe what has happened is that we now have a new category of photographic art. One has always had the ability to manipulate an image no matter how it was shot. But since the proliferation of digital and related computer software a new level of manipulation has emerged.The resulting images lie some where between photograph and painting.Again I see nothing wrong with this. So many beautiful images have been created this way. My only concern is when a persons perception of something is altered by an image so highly manipulated. And I am talking when an image like that may be used to entice someone to use or purchase a product or service.That toguhht does not just apply to photographers but to the advertising industry in general.This certainly is an interesting topic and I am sure there are many valid opinions one way or another. I guess I am of the opinion that manipulations of photographs is really OK at most levels. We know that the camera and the eye see differently to begin with, so you are not really photographing what you saw anyway. So to manipulate an image to bring it closer to your perception of a scene I don't think is an issue. To go beyond that well then you are entering into that new area of photographic art, again I think this is a new in between category where many beautiful images are being created.As with anything new or different it will take time for it to work it's self out and develop its own place. And as with anything there will be those who will push its limits such as those who inappropriately manipulate news images.I look forward to seeing where this goes
This is an inter
esting issue. Bu
t at the same ti
me it is one tha
t I think gets o
ver toguhht on o
ccasion. I say i
t depends If an
image is being u
sed to represent
something, say a
location or prod
uct, for adverti
sing then I beli
eve there needs
to be a degree o
f truthfulness'
to it.I know tha
t most images us
ed in advertisin
g are really far
from where they
began. And your
question applies
, how far is too
far?In an image
that represents
news or is used
in news should b
e pretty much as
shot. Of course
you can make som
e minor adjustme
nts to it as you
would if printin
g in a dark room
.In the case of
the images of th
e Queen I don't
know that it is
necessary to put
any limitations
on what can be d
one. If the same
scene was to be
painted by an ar
tist the resulti
ng portrait woul
d really be a co
mplete manifesta
tion of the arti
sts view of the
scene.So if a ph
otographer is sh
ooting a portrai
t of a person wh
ere is the rule
that limits them
to a straight fr
om the camera sh
ot. I don't thin
k there needs to
be one.Maybe wha
t has happened i
s that we now ha
ve a new categor
y of photographi
c art. One has a
lways had the ab
ility to manipul
ate an image no
matter how it wa
s shot. But sinc
e the proliferat
ion of digital a
nd related compu
ter software a n
ew level of mani
pulation has eme
rged.The resulti
ng images lie so
me where between
photograph and p
ainting.Again I
see nothing wron
g with this. So
many beautiful i
mages have been
created this way
. My only concer
n is when a pers
ons perception o
f something is a
ltered by an ima
ge so highly man
ipulated. And I
am talking when
an image like th
at may be used t
o entice someone
to use or purcha
se a product or
service.That tog
uhht does not ju
st apply to phot
ographers but to
the advertising
industry in gene
ral.This certain
ly is an interes
ting topic and I
am sure there ar
e many valid opi
nions one way or
another. I guess
I am of the opin
ion that manipul
ations of photog
raphs is really
OK at most level
s. We know that
the camera and t
he eye see diffe
rently to begin
with, so you are
not really photo
graphing what yo
u saw anyway. So
to manipulate an
image to bring i
t closer to your
perception of a
scene I don't th
ink is an issue.
To go beyond tha
t well then you
are entering int
o that new area
of photographic
art, again I thi
nk this is a new
in between categ
ory where many
beautiful images
are being create
d.As with anythi
ng new or differ
ent it will take
time for it to w
ork it's self ou
t and develop it
s own place. And
as with anything
there will be th
ose who will pus
h its limits suc
h as those who i
nappropriately m
anipulate news i
mages.I look for
ward to seeing w
here this goes