Shaun Loc: Tucson, AZ

I realize that there are many purists in this group who feel that adding interest to an existing photo is a total sin - "it should be straight out of the camera". I take exception to this train of thought because if it is my picture, it is mine to change as I see fit to make it more enjoyable for me. In fact, if it makes it more enjoyable for other people, I am all for it. After all, whether we shoot in RAW or JPEG, there are modifications that must be made - either by computer (when shooting RAW) or by the camera's software when shooting JPEG. I have included two treatments of the same shot with the one modified to a sunset being my favorite. What are your feelings on this?

Original photo

(Download)

Modified photo

(Download)

jim quist Loc: Missouri

It is for journalists

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Correct. But Reuters and BBC routinely lie w/ retouched photos and false captions. And even totally bogus 'set up' photos.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Shaun,
As the creator of your image, you have the right to change it the way you want. The way your mind wants it to be and the way your camera captured it. In this case an OUTSTANDING addition to the image through Post Processing.

alliebess Loc: suburban Philadelphia

I believe that it is not wrong to modify a photograph if it is taken as a work of art, but if it is documentary it should not be modified. An artist should be free to express his/her own vision, but a reporter should be objective and deal with facts, visually and verbally.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

i concur with prevailing opinions: No, if it's a work of art. Yes, if it's a news photo.

SueMac Loc: Box Elder, SD

Very nice work. And I agree with the rest...if it is news footage it shouldn't be doctored. But if it is yours and you want to enhance it...go for it!

seemore_Stars

It is a crime punishable by death. Just kidding. I agree with those that say journalists should not modify their photos contents other then to improve visibility.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I like your artistic interpretation of this image very much.

If you look at the "It's your image do what you want to it" link in my signature, you'll see where I stand on the "issue."

There have been several topics of discussion on this subject, including in For Your Consideration. Here is one:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-406776-1.html

In a photo forum, I think it's important to share the information when you have significantly altered an image. For me, I will look at your work differently. For example, as a nature and wildlife lover and photographer, I will share your joy at being able to capture a unique weather event or a right time/right place interaction between animals - and I will imagine myself in that situation.

But if you've created that moment via pp, then I would evaluate your editing ability and your artistry.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

It is neither right nor wrong and you made a fine work of art.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

What is a "normal" photograph? Is it one that is taken only in auto mode? You can get lots of different look sith in camera settings. For example changing white balance in the picture illustrated could get similar results as changing it in PP. Perhaps it is taking the picture so it looks like what you see with the naked eye. I'm think photographers can do anything they want in camera or PP to get what they want. - Dave

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

I like the effect you used in 2,I enjoy making artistic changes to some of my photos.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

I take many photos of waterfalls. I generally use the long exposure method for the silky look. However taking them with a faster shutter speed results in the frozen water look. Neither is how our eyes see them. To see them as our eyes see them requires videos.

So which is right? Does it matter? I think not. It's personal taste.

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

First of all, both shots are lovely! You did great enhancements in the second shot. I also like it the best. Not wrong at all.

I have no problems with people using their artistic vision and talents in creating their images. I applaud them and admire their skill and takent.

What I do have a problem with is when they imply they actually shot the scene as shown. For example they say "here is a beautiful sunrise I shot yesterday morning on the way to work," when in reality what is shown is not at all what they shot yesterday morning. They created the scene using software.

Or they show a beautiful little rural white church with the colorful fall colors on the hillside behind it, they say they saw while travelling. Only in reality they took an image and added the church taken from somewhere else, or even a stock photo, to it. To me this is lying and is unethical when they pretend they actually shot the image as shown. But I understand others disagree with me.

I enjoy and admire artistic creativity, whether it is sooc or through pp software. I do not admire those who "pretend" they shot the image as shown, when in fact it was totally created using pp software. Just my opinion.

tramsey Loc: Texas

It's yours so do with it what you want. If someone disagrees, too bad. Most of these purists are liars anyway. If they did film, they worked in a dark room and that is p/p to.