Why PSing isn't evil?

I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

--
?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

--
?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/


Perhaps for the same reason that film photographers never took an oath to
NOT make a print after exposing a piece of negative film. Making the
exposure is just the beginning of the process. What you do with that raw
data and the tools and techniques you use to transform that into a final
product will determine your ability to properly convey your vision to
others - exactly like in the old days when someone had to work hard in the
darkroom to produce a final print that truly represented what the
photographer saw.

On May 3, 7:06 am, "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"
wrote:
I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?


Photographers have always manipulated images, from choice of film
stock, to lense choice, to choosing what time of day they shoot, as
well as using myriad developing and printing materials and
techniques. PS is just another tool. If someone chooses to put a
parrot's head on a giraffe, or show George Bush playing bridge with
Osama bin Laden, so what, you're not oblidged to believe it or even
look at it. If you want forensic evidence there are methods (using
software programs) to help insure evidence reliability and that is a
particular subset of photography. IMHO.

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

--
?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

Ever use a filter on a film camera? Ever reach down and pull a weed next to
that flower you are shooting? Ever use a soft focus filter for a film
portrait? Same thing, just done before shooting, instead of after.

Why should they have to? If they do then back in the day in the wet darkroom
people should have had to take the same oath. Many of the things done to
images today were started in the wet darkroom. People have a right to adjust
their images to get what they want. The only area that this is a problem is
for those that are documenting history and expect their images to be used in
a historical perspective. And, even then they have a right to make basic
adjustments to sharpness, saturation, exposure, etc. They do not have a
right to clone things in or out, but creative cropping is fine.

Get over it!

=(8)

On May 3, 6:06 am, "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"
wrote:
I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community?

Heh heh, well, as I see it, the ethics and legality of the touching
depends on where the touching is done and whether it is consensual
touching between adults.

;)

--
YOP...

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?

"Evil" is a bit strong but some find overdone post-processing less than
pleasing to look at. To each his own. Photography is about expression and
communication and the post processes are fair game just as are exposure,
DOF, and composition.

On 3 May 2007 13:55:49 -0700, Nervous Nick wrote:

I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community?

Heh heh, well, as I see it, the ethics and legality of the touching
depends on where the touching is done and whether it is consensual
touching between adults.

It'll never get to that stage at least for budding photographers,
since the initial touching stage will weed them out of the photo
capturing community by causing them to go blind.

-- --

There once was a young man named Nick
Who wished he could fondle his . . . stick
He instead learned to pose
Young maidens and those
Who think PS'ed self portraits are slick.

If God did not want you to use Photoshop She would not have allowed it to be
invented.

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm wondering why touching isn't considered evil among photography
community? IOW, why photographers aren't taking oath not to use PS?



Unless you are a photojournalist who is representing his photographs as an
an honest account of the actual event, why would using Photoshop be "evil"?
For other purposes, the use of editing software is "artistic license" and is
up to the judgment of the individual photgrapher. I've seen photographs
"ruined" by over editing, in my opinion. Regrettable, and perhaps bad
taste, but certain not "evil"
If you meant "photojournalist" instead of "photographer", you should have
said so.

Yoshi