- jeff manning
now that is funny i had to go back and see !!!!!! he looks like he is winking at me
Originally Posted by Trackerguy
OBSERVER NEWS SERVICESNo photo of the ******* !
Catches of the week
Blue catfish of 14 and 8 pounds at Lake Norman by Justin Hdalik, 8, of Mooresville. He was fishing with his grandfather, James Hdalik, and guide Mac Byrum of Denver, N.C.
Read more: Outdoor Notebook - CharlotteObserver.com
Mac, in response to your PM, just right click on my photo and hit save. You should be able to get it onto your computer pretty easily. I would email it to ya but I didn't save it to my computer. And Dieter, I wasn't being literal when I said it was their job. Sarcasm just doesn't come through a computer very well ya know. The only reason that I even bothered patching the photo was for a good laugh (im glad someone else thought the winking butthole was funny, haha), but I'm sure that newspaper editors have more important things to do. But in retrospect, it is pretty dumb if what you say is true. I mean "color correction" and cropping are still just ways to make a photo more aesthetically pleasing, so what is the difference between that and patching something??? Also, out of curiosity, do you know if they ask permission before they make these edits to photos? Seems like it is taking away a little bit from the photographer. But then again, most of us are like me and don't give a crap. I just figured they would be legally binded to ask permission.
".....color correction and cropping are still just ways to make a photo more aesthetically pleasing, so what is the difference between that and patching something???...."
By "stamping", as it is called in Photoshop, you are removing something from the image that you see. The often used rule is, "is this what the viewer would have seen if they were there?"
Here a good example of how things can be carried a bit too far, but I guess it is better to have rules than none at all:
World Press Photo Disqualifies Winner
Here is some more good reading on the subject:
A Photo Editor - Aurora Photos Now Has A Journalistic Search Filter
Fair enough...but as the comments surrounding those articles suggest, there are ALOT of different viewpoints on what is acceptable and what is not in the photography world. I don't think there will ever be a real "industry standard" with something as abstract as photography. I have a good friend who is a well respected photographer (has been published in lots of magazines), and he would say that 99% of digital photography out there is just garbage. He still shoots film and does all of his editing in the darkroom. In general I think that he puts more thought/energy into every photo he takes, because there is only so much that he is able to change once the photo is taken. (plus film is too expensive to just be going around snapping pictures all day). On the other side of the coin, I have no quarrels with digital photography. It's cheap, its easy, and it's fun. I do think that it takes away alot of the artistic aspect of things for the photographer, as anyone can take a crappy picture and turn it into something cool, but editing in itself is an art of sorts. And the reality is that as long as those tools are available, people are going to use them...whether it is for personal use or for a major media publication. I enjoyed the articles! Thanks for sharing