And that's pretty much the only real difference. We have two highly
manipulated images, neither of which comes even close to existing in
reality. Yet one sold for 4.3 Million, the other is posted on
facebook. I'm neither defending or condemning either image, but neither
is an unmanipulated photograph. If you don't claim that your picture is
created in camera, then anything goes. Hell, I have, somewhere, books
describing how to put interesting skies into black and white prints, in
the darkroom. Photoshop just makes it easier. The issue I have is when
someone represents a composite photo as reality.
On 9/29/2015 10:57 PM, Knarf wrote:
Well, for one thing Rhine II sold for $4.3 million while this piece of dreck is
on Facebook.
Cheers,
frank
On 29 September, 2015 10:13:37 PM EDT, "P.J. Alling"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Though the technique leaves a bit to be desired, is this really any
different than Rhine II?
On 9/29/2015 8:43 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'm normally averse to grabbing other people's shots from Facebook,
but this fake really pissed me off. I forget who the (claimed)
photographer is, but that's just as well. This is allegedly an
"antler
arch" in Jackson Hole, Wyoming photographed at such an angle as to
put
the lunar eclipse right next to it. Count the ways in which this
screams "fake"... before you even try opening it up in Photoshop and
brightening it enough to see how shitty the cut-and-paste really was.
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/FakeRedMoon.jpg
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
