Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Most amateur photographers who have turned to digital enhancement and printing believe that the image editing software can do as much and more than the darkroom did. "Enhancement" is the key word here and by adjusting contrast, colour balance etc. my images are improved. Occasionally I have removed a lampost or a piece of litter from my pictures but always with a view to enhancing/improving the finished picture. I still use a traditional 35mm camera for the original image. Provided there is no intent to deceive what is the problem.?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Pictures of introduces smiles, extra big boobs, skies full of aircraft, what can we believe?
Should travel agents be allowed to remove unwanted scaffolding? estate agents take out an overlooking house from the view of the garden? It's all easy can we trust photos. Should they have the words digitally enhanced.
Lets have a heated debate!
You have never been able to trust a picture explicitly, however the image was produced. Some "experts" can do unbelievable things in the darkroom, especially with photographs. Just saying Digitally enhanced could mean any one of a mulitude of things, both good and bad.
I agree, however the invention of the digital camera and the software with the ability to manipulate any element of any picture has made it all to easy to do. Darkroom manipulation techniques are an art, now anyone can do it for any means.
There's no holding back technology so the answer has to be yes, digitally tweaked pictures are the way it's gonna be.
Of course the darkroom has always been the place where the technician shows you what he wants you to see rather than
what the photographer saw as he pushed the button, so nothing's really changed.
My dad (a historian) is horrified by the thought that you can no longer believe what you see, but photographers have been doing this sort of thing for well over a hundred years.
I do think though that if you are selling a product, any "enhancement" of the photo could fall foul of the trade descriptions act.
I do think that true news pictures should not be ,changed, but can be ,enhanced, - sharpened for example.
Otherwise, why is digital a problem, other than it makes things easier. The famous war picture of the marines raising the flag on Mount Subarachi on Iwo Jima was set up by the photographer. Many great conventional photographs have been manipulated in the darkroom.
I see no change.
I am sure in this computer wise age it is only the fool who really believes that the camera never LIES.
Never mind about introduced smiles etc.Since the papers went over to using digital photos the quality of pictures in the papers has plumetted.This applies equally to the so called quality newspapers as to the rags.
Why not, They have been not been telling the whole truth for many years with text.....now they can do the same with photos!!!
remember don't believe everything you hear some of what you see and a little of what you read.....
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar