CROPPING
Early on I considered the 1st generation image to be THE photograph. If it wasn't composed quite to my liking, or there was too much in the frame, I felt it wasn't a good photo. But then I began to realize that since camera viewfinders rarely show the photographer exactly what will be exposed on the full frame of film, it wasn't my "fault" that the camera cropped the image differently than my eyes saw it. So I don't feel that cropping is an unwanted manipulation. What's more, many of us compare our results to those "professionals" of our liking. Have we seen their first generation images? No. How do we know the images we see of theirs are not cropped? We don't. So if I don't get it quite exactly right IN CAMERA, I consider cropping OUT OF CAMERA, to be a second chance to fine tune the composition. It's still my picture, I was still their to see it initially, still their to press the shutter release and control exposure, etc., and it's still my creation.
FILTERS
Most often filters are used to affect exposure, correct color casts when the film will record the scene much differently than the human eye (as in total overcast or indoor lighting), reduce reflections as with a polarizer, soften images, create special effects. I have no qualms with using filters on the lens as a means of corrective or creative expression. I cringe a little when it comes to applying filters post-exposure, as in Photoshop. I don't know exactly why I feel that way since I believe most images we see have gone though some kind of manipulation at print time. All prints from negative film are 'interpreted' from the negative to the positive and are a rendering of the orginal scene. For that matter, using film A over film B because of it's saturation or color characteristics is a manipulation. When it comes to manipulating an image post-exposure, there's some point, in my mind, when it ceases to be a photograph and crosses over to being simply an image or a creation.
Tom C.
From: "Kevin Thornsberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: where is the crossing line ? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:16:35 -0500
For some interesting discussion on this point see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cloning-the-can.shtml.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Markus Maurer
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 12:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: where is the crossing line ?
Hi Cotty
that's an interesting point for me: Where is the crossing line for manipulating
photos? And has there to be one? Times where a photo was a proof are long gone.
I feel already like cheating a bit if I change anything on a photo, even
cropping. I don't know why.... actually. I will answer more on your comments
later
Markus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Cotty wrote:
The same effect could have been produced with a graduated filter. Instead of
using a filter, I adjusted the picture digitally with a very simple tool in
Photoshop. Also, I cropped it and introduced an increase in saturation. I would
not, however, move the position of any cloud. To me, that's crossing the line
and beyond what I consider acceptable in digital manipulation. For instance,
there is a whispy cloud on the edge of frame at left which could easily be
cloned out. Not for me though.
_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
