 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2006Why does a dog lick himself?
He does it, of course, because he can... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/ts_nm/mideast_reuters_dc Ken > He does it, of course, because he can... > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/ts_nm/mideast_reuters_dc > > Ken Interesting article. Personally, I would love to see this rigour applied to anything bearing the name 'photography'. Cue the Photoshop fraternity who immediately drag out the 'photographers have been using filters' argument. IMHO, manipulation maketh not a good photograph anyway. :-) Ducks into nearby corner... Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) > Interesting article. Personally, I would love to see this rigour applied > to anything bearing the name 'photography'. Cue the Photoshop fraternity > who immediately drag out the 'photographers have been using filters' > argument. Let's try "photographers have been using filters for years".... DE >> Interesting article. Personally, I would love to see this rigour applied >> to anything bearing the name 'photography'. Cue the Photoshop fraternity [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DE Hi all, it's my first post so go easy on me ;-) Photographers have been manipulating photos in the darkroom (and using filters ;-) for years now, and Photoshop is just a digital version of the darkroom, albeit allot more advanced, and in the right hands, is capable of producing some outstanding images/pictures. As long as the end result is what we want, does it really matter how we get there? The exception being photo journalism, which should only ever use photographs that are un-manipulated. IMO a photograph is the original image, un-manipulated, and straight from the camera, whereas a manipulated photograph should be called a picture or image. As for the picture in question by the freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, well, he hasn't done himself any favours by submitting work like that! It has got to be one of the worst attempts at cloning I have ever seen, and how/why Reuters let it be published in the first place is beyond me. Anyway that's my two penneth, all the best. Mick >>> Interesting article. Personally, I would love to see this rigour >>> applied to anything bearing the name 'photography'. Cue the Photoshop [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hi all, it's my first post so go easy on me ;-) Hi Mick, welcome - not that I'm really any kind of official 'welcomer'... :-) > Photographers have been manipulating photos in the darkroom (and using > filters ;-) for years now, and Photoshop is just a digital version of the > darkroom, albeit allot more advanced, and in the right hands, is capable > of producing some outstanding images/pictures. Very true, to an extent. Putting pacific blue skies into shots of some parts of Asia in summer gets a bit far-fetched IMHO. Also, removing the tree trunk growing out of granny's cranium is all too easy these days. Take the best shot in the first instance if you ask me! :-) > As long as the end result is what we want, does it really matter how we > get there? The exception being photo journalism, which should only ever > use photographs that are un-manipulated. Again, I agree to an extent. > IMO a photograph is the original image, un-manipulated, and straight from > the camera, whereas a manipulated photograph should be called a picture or > image. Full agreement here, maybe being a little lenient on some minor colour balancing, a touch of unsharp masking and any other necessary pre-press work... lots of gray areas here... > As for the picture in question by the freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, > well, he hasn't done himself any favours by submitting work like that! It > has got to be one of the worst attempts at cloning I have ever seen, and > how/why Reuters let it be published in the first place is beyond me. Indeed - he must have been a Canon shooter... :-P > Anyway that's my two penneth, all the best. > > Mick Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) >>>> Interesting article. Personally, I would love to see this rigour >>>> applied to anything bearing the name 'photography'. Cue the Photoshop [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Cheers, > Dave E (Sydney) Hi Dave, and thanks for the welcome. Yeah I know what you mean, those Pacific skies etc can be a bit over done sometimes, normally over-saturated. I tend to tweak most of my pics using Levels, Brightness/Contrast, and Unsharp Mask, but I try to keep them as natural looking as possible. Since going digital I have not had that many pics that haven't benefited from some kind of tweak, especially Levels (however small) as I just don't seem to get the richness & vibrancy straight from the camera (Canon EOS ;-) that I used to get using Fuji Velvia, but that's probably down to me being over critical! Cheers Mick >>>>> Interesting article. Personally, I would love to see this rigour >>>>> applied to anything bearing the name 'photography'. Cue the Photoshop [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >> Indeed - he must have been a Canon shooter... :-P from a 'canon shooter' ( FTB ). if the original question was why does a dog lick his/her human's face, the answer is "because he's just licked his arse & wants to get the taste out of his mouth" <grin> Ian C >>> Anyway that's my two penneth, all the best. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Cheers >Mick >>He does it, of course, because he can... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Cheers, > Dave E (Sydney) It's "just not done" in photojournalism. Manipulation in photographic art is one thing, but it's not acceptable in news photography. The picture tells a story, and that story has to be the truth. And in this case it's a really ham-fisted effort. Look at the manipulated image on the left. You can see overlapping circles where the clone stamp was used. They're even visible in the thumbnail that accompanies the article. What I don't understand is how something so obviously manipulated ever got past the photo editor in the first place. > >>He does it, of course, because he can... > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > clone stamp was used. They're even visible in the thumbnail that > accompanies the article. Funny thing is, the supposedly un-manipulated version also shown in that article also looks like there's been some cloning or healing brush applied. > What I don't understand is how something so obviously manipulated ever > got past the photo editor in the first place. Yes, that's the question in my mind too. Peter > He does it, of course, because he can... > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/ts_nm/mideast_reuters_dc > > Ken There's this one http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/2772/reuters-pulls-doctored-photo.html that claims he was just touching up dust. - [Hajj, who has freelanced for Reuters since 1993 and has been suspended pending an internal inquiry, "denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," according to the Reuters statement.] Twain was wrong, or didn't live long enough - lies, damn lies, statistics and photographs. Good for Reuters! I know photos have been altered for years, but when you allow the PJs to alter their images, then all credibility is lost. Dump the bastard. > He does it, of course, because he can... > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/ts_nm/mideast_reuters_dc > > Ken > Good for Reuters! I know photos have been altered for years, but when you > allow the PJs to alter their images, then all credibility is lost. Dump the > bastard. And shoot the photo editor who accepted the image in the first place. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.