[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APD] Re: Red Eye, Take 2

Well said. Rather than impose censorship by one
adminestrator, I thin the AGA generally let's the judges
decide with their scoring. I think it takes a bit of
redemption, pointwise, to overcome a half-fish. ;-)

--- Shawn Richardson <shawn at skrichardson_com> wrote:
>. . .
> Let's talk briefly about obvious manipulation, i.e.
> making green leaves
> red.  In order to get the manipulation past a
> photographer, you would
> have to have considerable skill and time.  It is
> extremely easy to spot
> this stuff if you are looking for it.  And if you are
> trying to hide it,
> you have to work hard.  Time better spent on the tank.
> Enhancement is another discussion entirely.  Generally
> speaking, the
> image never comes out like it looked to your eye.  The
> film/digital cam
> responds much differently than your eye.  What looks
> somewhat shadowed
> suddenly gets really dark in the image because of the
> value of the
> bright objects.  Then there are color shift issues.  Who
> wants to look
> at grainy images? . . .
> to me.  How about scratches on the glass? Is it ok to
> digitally remove
> plumbing if you can't physically remove it?  What would
> be the
> difference?
> In conclusion, I think that enhancement v. manipulation
> has really been
> blown out of proportion lately.  A photograph is not
> truthful.  It never
> has been truthful.  However, most of the problematic
> "manipulation" is
> very obvious to those who know what the signs are.  I
> think we can take
> comfort in the difficulty of fooling those with skills in
> the digital
> arts.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com