[Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma

["Eric" <ericm@pobox.com>]

Sonny:

>They were both shot twenty feet apart.
>Why not combine them for a real flavour of the transportation expo?

That's why I wouldn't get upset if this image weren't labeled.  Then again,
I thinking labeling in general is a bad idea.  The more labels you have, the
more borderline cases you also have to deal with.  I don't understand how an
image altered in photoshop that reflects reality is less of a photograph
than one created solely in a camera that doesn't accurately show reality at
all.

Here are a couple photos that I think are perfectly acceptable as photos:

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/c071200_L4_01_600-mt_evans_goat.htm
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/c071698_aL4-1.htm

And the photographer's ethics statement:

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/photo-ethics.htm

I like this quote:

> The resulting images I "create" are technical representations to get
> around the limitations of camera/film technology. I do not subscribe
> the the view that such manipulation is unethical. I am not trying to
> show you an exact duplicate of what the film recorded, but what I
> liked/remembered about being in that location.

In other words, he's not creating photos where he moved items for layout
convenience.  He's not adding penguins to shots of the north pole.  If it is
perfectly acceptable to dodge and burn to get around the limits of film
technology, then why is combining images an illustration instead of a photo?
Tina mentioned a Photoshop action that combines images to produce better
dynamic range.  Should that be labeled as a photo montage, too?  :)

In a wet darkroom, I've burned some areas of a print just to eliminate
distracting backgrounds.  If I'm removing an element that was present, how
is that any more pure than using Photoshop to create a photo that represents
an exact time slice of reality?


Eric
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html