Opinions and thoughts, please.

On 9/2/2017 11:02 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/01/2017 10:01 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/1/2017 10:11 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 08/31/2017 08:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 31, 2017, Russell D. wrote
(in article ):

I would like your opinions/thoughts on the following two versions of a
photograph. Which do you consider to be the better? The first is the
original that has been straightened, cropped, and contrast adjusted
and
the second has obviously had much more work done to it.

Here are the two photos. For more history on the photo you can read
below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvh0ubai0j...0x566.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9nijb8w99...0x566.jpg?dl=0

Also, is the second version even “honest?� Is it really okay to edit a
photo to that extent?

I have taken a look, and I have formed my Solomonic opinion.

The image capture was opportune, and is a record of the moment, and
either
version would have demonstrated that. However, the missing pieces of
information you have ommited which would guide me in formulating my
opinion,
are when you made the edits to version #2 with the removed
barbed-wire, and
if either version was published in the student newspaper.

If #1 was the published version, and #2 was a result of tinkering to
produce
a “personal�, cleaned up version I see no issue.

If #2 was published as a journalist’s record of the event, I would
call it
a violation of photojournalist ethics as it did not document the
moment,
warts and all.

I suspect that you only recently had the tools available to make the
edits in
#2, since in a 1972 darkroom you would not likely have the time,
darkroom
tools, and darkroom skills to make those edits with the ease they
would be
possible today.

So, if you somehow made those edits back in 1972, and actually
published the
shot as part of a story, it would not have been “honest�.

If #2 is the result of recently finding the negative, and making a few
“what if� edits with the software of your choice, it is an “honest�
rendition of how you wanted to present the image.

BTW: Nice work, and the dragsters seem to be pretty organized,
complete with
a light tree.

I had always wished that I had had the time and maybe forethought, to
compose the picture without the wire running through the driver’s
head.
But, as I’ve looked at it recently I now wonder if that is really that
bad. Just wondering what others thoughts might be.

In the fall of 1972 I was the new head (and only) photographer for the
student newspaper of a small junior college in Idaho. The editor heard
about some drag racing that was supposed to be happening on a rural
road
out in the farms near town so he grabbed me to go check it out to
see if
there might be a story. I took a few pictures and as we got in the car
to leave I noticed this dragster getting ready to make a run and then
noticed the fence and thought it might make a nice frame so I
jumped out
of the car, ran over by the fence and was lucky to get this shot.

I always liked this shot but I had lost the negatives and was
rather sad
about it. Then a couple of years ago I was going through a box of old
crap that I had and sitting loose in the bottom of the box I found
some
negatives, this was among them. They were a bit beat up but luckily
usable. Here is the straight scan of the 35mm frame in question. I was
lucky that the damage was where it was.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfwg8a62n...0x514.jpg?dl=0

BTW, for any interested, this was taken with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL
and
a 50mm f2.0 lens using Kodak Tri-X probably at box speed. Can’t
remember
what it was developed in.

Thanks for your time,

Russell


Mr Cooper and SD have offered opinions that I more or less agree with.

I too, which is why I didn't commentÂ* previously.



The altered version (#2) is "artistically" a better image, simply
because of the removed barbed wire.

But it is not honest, and should not be presented as an accurate
record of the event.

True.

OTOH, the removal of the barbed wire doesn't really affect the story
behind the image. It's not like you added a group of semi-nude female
spectators, changing the story. The story is still the same, with or
without the barbed wire. In fact, it's more clear without.

Just how far can a photojournalist go?


I frequently remove power lines from my images. I see nothing wrong
with doing so.
I recently submitted this long exposure image to a group. As an
explanation of my technique, I mentioned that since this was a 30
second exposure, I had trained the birds to stay perfectly still. For
some reason, I doubt if anyone believed that statement. I don't think
that statement was dishonest.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e59a9o6o7sj02tu/5Nubble%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0


Very nice image. I think it would have worked without the birds, too.
With the birds, I immediately thought "Hitchcock!"


Thanks for your comment. but, if you want Hitchcock:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cd5kii4om59nuvu/mrs%20bates.jpg?dl=0



--
PeterN

On Sep 3, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):


Thanks for your comment. but, if you want Hitchcock:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cd5kii4om59nuvu/mrs%20bates.jpg?dl=0

Naah! That is more Winslow Homer, or Andrew Wyeth.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 9/3/2017 11:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 3, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):


Thanks for your comment. but, if you want Hitchcock:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cd5kii4om59nuvu/mrs%20bates.jpg?dl=0

Naah! That is more Winslow Homer, or Andrew Wyeth.


You remember too much of where that image was taken. Even though it was
taken at the Olsen Farm, It is still my impression of Mrs. Bates. I
didn't need a dull light bulb hanging from a cord.




--
PeterN