oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

[quote=Photographer Jim]You’re right. Spoon feed was a poor choice of term. Front load would probably be more appropriate and better convey what I meant. My apologies.

Interestingly enough, after the first year of selling my images at art festivals I did start labeling the more extensively processed images “photo-digital art” (intensionally vague) on the title price card. I did so not because I thought I needed to front load people, but rather to help avoid the constant question “Is this photoshopped”? Instead I would be asked “What is photo-digital art”? That allowed me to explain a bit about my process (overlaying texture and color layers with the original and a layer of the original converted to a line drawing. Then color extracted by Wacom pen. And saturation adjustments of individual colors). Most of us don’t mind explaining our manipulations, but i still prefer the viewer experience the image first, unencumbered by technical info about how it was created.

The bear example brings up a good distinction. In and of itself those alterations are not a problem. They only become a problem if the photographer denies the alterations were done. The alterations are not a lie; the denial is.[/quot

And I would argue that failure to disclose is a form of denial, at least in my example. Appreciate your response.

Angmo

Phew.. DSP!! No more nightmares for anyone!!!

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

[quote=oregonfrank][quote=Photographer Jim]You’re right. Spoon feed was a poor choice of term. Front load would probably be more appropriate and better convey what I meant. My apologies.

Interestingly enough, after the first year of selling my images at art festivals I did start labeling the more extensively processed images “photo-digital art” (intensionally vague) on the title price card. I did so not because I thought I needed to front load people, but rather to help avoid the constant question “Is this photoshopped”? Instead I would be asked “What is photo-digital art”? That allowed me to explain a bit about my process (overlaying texture and color layers with the original and a layer of the original converted to a line drawing. Then color extracted by Wacom pen. And saturation adjustments of individual colors). Most of us don’t mind explaining our manipulations, but i still prefer the viewer experience the image first, unencumbered by technical info about how it was created.

The bear example brings up a good distinction. In and of itself those alterations are not a problem. They only become a problem if the photographer denies the alterations were done. The alterations are not a lie; the denial is.[/quot

And I would argue that failure to disclose is a form of denial, at least in my example. Appreciate your response.[/quote]

Actually, the way you tagged your images and being available for discussion at the point of sale was a good way to disclose your PP. Thanks for that example.

Una

I’m with you on that !

TheDman Loc: USA

When? Did you speak to him? I visited the AA gallery in Yosemite last year, and it didn't disclose his pp quantity anywhere for any photo.

TheDman Loc: USA

You're just another one who holds the completely amateur opinion that the more you pp, the more away from "reality" you get. There is no correlation between the two.

TheDman Loc: USA

Yeah, somebody might get the impression that bears live in the woods, which would be completely dishonest.

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

I've read more than one source describing how he processed images in his lab. If he wasn't open about it, it likely would not have been published.

TheDman Loc: USA

And what sources have you read describing how myself and others have processed our images?

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

First of all I am an amateur and not ashamed of it, but I will admit that I don't know how complete an amateur I am. Would you rather that all amateurs exit this forum? Or must we achieve "professional" status before expressing our views? Second, in my posts on this thread I don't think you will find the term "reality." The main point I've made is that PP, especially extensive PP, I would like to see disclosed in some manner for the benefit of the viewer. If you disagree that's fine, and if so I would be interested in your reasons. I have not criticized PP per se.

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

Sources about Ansel Adams, not you and others.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Without getting bogged in all the emotion going on here I just want to say that having lived in several parts of the U. S. and seen some overseas areas, given changing atmospheric conditions, green grass IS greener in some places than in others. To assume that a landscape in one part of the country is representative of how a similar landscape in other parts of the country has to look is being more than a little bit naive. Unless a person has experienced the vivid colors that exist in nature in some parts of the world that do not exist in others, it's worse than bring naive to assume that what another person has seen is contrived. In some parts of the U. S. the ground is so flat, the trees so tall, and the sky so light or constantly overcast and washed out that if you've spent all your life in such an area you cannot fathom seeing 150 miles of brilliant green grass and deep blue sky with bright red rocks and brilliant white clouds and thunderheads that rise several miles into the atmosphere. Not saying it's the case in this thread since the OP is in a beautiful part of the country but some folks seem to think that the little world they live in is all there is. Those folks might benefit from traveling some.

TheDman Loc: USA

I would rather they not hold ill-informed opinions.

TheDman Loc: USA

So again, who are these photographers "not disclosing" their processes?

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

That's same thing I wish for the whole population.