Posted 25 April 2003 - 11:58 AM
Is there a forum rule about reposting someone elses request for critique images, within their original thread, showing suggested adjustments?
Most review sites encourage that, but I sure don't want to step on someones toes.
Posted 25 April 2003 - 01:00 PM
I think we are small enough to allow that sort of thing -- unless someone explicitly requests that their photo not be modified in any way.
A complaint can be rectified very quickly by deleting threads, anyway.
What do you all think?
Posted 25 April 2003 - 02:35 PM
Further, I think it weakens the case for all of us digital photographers when we make a routine of image alteration. I'm so sick and tired of people asking "what kind of camera do you shoot," as if the camera does all the work, or assuming that I've altered a photo because it is well lit or very colorful. I never had to deal with that BS when I shot film.
Sea & Sea strobes
Posted 25 April 2003 - 02:43 PM
I'm all for exposure and cropping modifications. Altering the actual content of the image is something that I wouldn't to do someone else's image.. unless it was a joke, of course.
Posted 25 April 2003 - 05:10 PM
At the end of the day (just to ensure we're in the correct place) no copyright infringement has taken place as the image is still 100% that of the original photographer, and so far no poster encouraging critique, even of the lowest magnetude has complained.
There is only so much you can do to a photograph in critique, one cannot or should not move things around to completely change the photo's composition. The originator learns nothing from it. A crop is different, and an important skill to learn in image presentation - As Kasey pointed out.
This is why I posted the image manipulation thread in critique, to enable people to rethink before posting an image in the competitions.
As Eric pointed out there have been obvious "Jokes" but done in the best possible taste with an obvious humour (like Eric's Octo-hat).
Ad Agencies may take 12 images and turn it into a one page composition - Nothing wrong with that as long as all the images come from one photographer or consenting adults - The difference here is that it's no longer a photo but a 'graphic representation'.
The what camera statement - Yes, it can be important as advice for DSLR's will differ to that say of a Oly 5050, but this is taking the thread off track again.
Posted 26 April 2003 - 02:05 AM
I think that the simplest camera in the hands of a skilled photographer would spur the same question.
I wasn't referring to comments on this forum. It's totally different when an educated photographer asks the same question as they attempt to accumulate knowledge. I'm guilty of doing exactly that any time I see a practiced photographer with a system I am unfamiliar with, or just to stir up conversation.
Sea & Sea strobes
Posted 26 April 2003 - 02:21 AM
We should move this conversation to somewhere else - Pick a slot!
Posted 28 April 2003 - 07:48 AM
Photoediting with a computer is not any different than what can be done in a darkroom or by a pro lab to enhance a negative. Cropping, Burning, Dodging, even garbage removal is ok in my book.
I do draw the line when it comes to adding any elements to an image. I am not against it, I just think you should so state it was done.
This is an argument that will rage amongst photographers for years......with no real solution that I can see.
Personally, the only photographs that I believe should be untouched are p/j images where a story is being reported. If its for sale to an agency, the only thing that matters is the client, if its for your personal use, than all that matters is that you are happy with it!
That said, i usually will say what I have done to edit a pic.
Theres an example of crappy shot, tha I made an semi-crappy shot by removing divers legs, arms and other crap from the background.