diver.net

Photo Philosophy


Great Dive Trips at Bargain Prices with the Sea Divers


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jeff Shaw on August 28, 2006 at 23:22:33:

On the subject of photography I would like folks to weigh in on their philosophy on retouching.

Some artists claim that retouching is "cheating" There have been many nature photographers in the past who refused to do any darkroom work other than minor cropping.

Commercial and art photographers had a bit more of an "ends justifies the process" approach.

I spoke to Bob Talbot once and asked how much photoshop work was employed in his work. He said that an astronomical amount was done [paraphrased}.

Further Another photo friend of mine had sold an image to Zeagle for a catalog cover. They airbrushed out the force fins and added their own.

SO...

If I post a shot here that has been significantly altered, should I indicate so.

For example, Here is a Garner shot slightly modified so that ONE fish is going the other way.

This created a small amount of tension in the photo composition.

Should I label this to indicate that it was retouched?

-Jeff



Follow Ups:


Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Message:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Post Background Color: White     Black
Post Area Page Width: Normal   Full
You must type in the
scrambled text key to
the right.
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.		 capcha
Text Key:

      


diver.net