Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
Next: But will MS's overheat in the sun, like the Crapple iPad?
From: Peter on 5 Aug 2010 15:12 "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message news:i3eoqs$241$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... >> Here's another one from that day. This one is not Photoshopped. > > This is a good candidate for Photoshopping. Even as "journalism". > You could remove all the people except the main 4 with no quibble. > This especially includes the person in the orange shirt which is > all that is showing. And of course the teensy ones in the background. > I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not so, if presented as art. Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a pictorial. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 5 Aug 2010 16:07 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message >news:i3eoqs$241$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... > >>> Here's another one from that day. This one is not Photoshopped. >> >> This is a good candidate for Photoshopping. Even as "journalism". >> You could remove all the people except the main 4 with no quibble. >> This especially includes the person in the orange shirt which is >> all that is showing. And of course the teensy ones in the background. >> > >I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not so, >if presented as art. >Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of >the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a >pictorial. I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street" and "PJ" (Photo Journalism). Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and - of course - war scenes. In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have more contrast than the actual scene. In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out something that might change the viewer's perception of what is portrayed. What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that trash can. I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of irritation. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 5 Aug 2010 17:38 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:id4m569khm721da7qug8bvu7rq6h24ep0l(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >> >>I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not >>so, >>if presented as art. >>Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of >>the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a >>pictorial. > > I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street" > and "PJ" (Photo Journalism). > > Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a > cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a > shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for > interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in > whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy > scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and - > of course - war scenes. > > In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract > from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can > is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or > significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is > acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing > steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have > more contrast than the actual scene. > > In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is > pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out > something that might change the viewer's perception of what is > portrayed. > > What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely > different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes > and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that > trash can. > > I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no > problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with > adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo > of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something > in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of > irritation. OK It's good to have definitions so we understand. Perhaps because I don't do a lot of street photography, I really don't distinguish between PJ and street. You are certainly correct in the context of your distinction about no cropping in PJ. I define pictorial as any image that has been seriously manipulated. I have no problem taking out of putting in. I will frequently change the sky, add birds, etc. I will also do full or partial partial color reversals. I do not represent any image as an accurate portrayal of the scene, unless it is. In our club I had presented an image of a lighthouse. the judge commented that it would be a stronger image if reversed. Under our local rules it would be permitted. Since this is a hobby, I think it's OK to do whatever degree of manipulation makes you comfortable. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 5 Aug 2010 18:21 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:38:55 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:id4m569khm721da7qug8bvu7rq6h24ep0l(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> > >>> >>>I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not >>>so, >>>if presented as art. >>>Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of >>>the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a >>>pictorial. >> >> I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street" >> and "PJ" (Photo Journalism). >> >> Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a >> cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a >> shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for >> interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in >> whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy >> scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and - >> of course - war scenes. >> >> In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract >> from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can >> is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or >> significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is >> acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing >> steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have >> more contrast than the actual scene. >> >> In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is >> pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out >> something that might change the viewer's perception of what is >> portrayed. >> >> What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely >> different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes >> and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that >> trash can. >> >> I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no >> problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with >> adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo >> of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something >> in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of >> irritation. > > >OK >It's good to have definitions so we understand. Perhaps because I don't do a >lot of street photography, I really don't distinguish between PJ and street. >You are certainly correct in the context of your distinction about no >cropping in PJ. > >I define pictorial as any image that has been seriously manipulated. I have >no problem taking out of putting in. I will frequently change the sky, add >birds, etc. I will also do full or partial partial color reversals. I do not >represent any image as an accurate portrayal of the scene, unless it is. In >our club I had presented an image of a lighthouse. the judge commented that >it would be a stronger image if reversed. Under our local rules it would be >permitted. > >Since this is a hobby, I think it's OK to do whatever degree of manipulation >makes you comfortable. I'm gin player, and a money gin player. Not big money, but the game doesn't interest me unless it's so-much-a-point. The first thing gin players do, before the cards are shuffled, is define the rules. Is it knock, and is there a maximum count to knock? Deal one more card to the non-dealer or the same number to both players and turn a card with a choice taking it or drawing from the deck? Hollywood? How much a point, how much a box, and what bonus for a schnitz? And so on. Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in the "Creative" group. Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way. I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which way he's facing in the capture. http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/costco-011/708026915_sZDGm-XL.jpg So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of people, places, or things? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 5 Aug 2010 18:49
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:oscm5657lbhviiime5n7l2hne5b9r8krde(a)4ax.com... > Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you > have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my > camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in > the "Creative" group. > > Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any > category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure > gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be > flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's > right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way. I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to shoot the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the left. If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1306/is_6_75/ai_n31978458/ > > I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll > process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which > way he's facing in the capture. > > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/costco-011/708026915_sZDGm-XL.jpg > > > So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not > pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of > people, places, or things? > -- Peter |