Why does a dog lick himself?

He does it, of course, because he can...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/...ast_reuters_dc

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:uPUBg.7971$7m5.6591@trnddc05...
He does it, of course, because he can...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/...ast_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

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
*******.

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:uPUBg.7971$7m5.6591@trnddc05...
He does it, of course, because he can...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/...ast_reuters_dc

Ken

Dave E wrote:
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:uPUBg.7971$7m5.6591@trnddc05...

He does it, of course, because he can...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/...ast_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)



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.

Kinon O'Cann wrote:

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
*******.

And shoot the photo editor who accepted the image in the first place.

"Dave E" wrote in message
...
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




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

"Mick Harris" wrote in message
...

"Dave E" wrote in message
...
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




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)

"no_name" wrote in message
om...
Dave E wrote:
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:uPUBg.7971$7m5.6591@trnddc05...

He does it, of course, because he can...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/...ast_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)



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.

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

"Dave E" wrote in message
...
"Mick Harris" wrote in message
...

"Dave E" wrote in message
...
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




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)




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