A dilemma: The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any...

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

#1

(Download)

#2
#2...

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Disclose to who? Why? Where / when have you ever seen similar disclosures?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I wouldn't if it was my image!
It's an image.

(The staunch realists may have other opinions.....
But how would they know if you didn't say anything?)

woodyH

Woody here. Well, you couldn't call it your photograph, but if you call it a photo-based illustration (which you contrived) you wouldn't be debasing your moral position. But then, on social media, whom of them look long enough to generate a thought deeper than, oh nice, and move on to what they were there for, to have their own say.

BebuLamar

You just post it. You don't need to call it anything.

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Disclose to who? Why? Where / when have you ever seen similar disclosures?

I just thought if I added something that wasn’t part of the original I should disclose it.

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

BebuLamar wrote:

You just post it. You don't need to call it anything.

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

BebuLamar wrote:

You just post it. You don't need to call it anything.

Ok thanks

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

woodyH wrote:

Woody here. Well, you couldn't call it your photograph, but if you call it a photo-based illustration (which you contrived) you wouldn't be debasing your moral position. But then, on social media, whom of them look long enough to generate a thought deeper than, oh nice, and move on to what they were there for, to have their own say.

True. Thanks

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Triplets wrote:

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

Let them guess.

On a personal note! I like both versions, but I lean towards the first one. The arch seems more pronounced and the eyes target the arch then the mountains behind. The 2nd appears somewhat cluttered. The eyes wonder around the image.
Just my opinion and I may be wrong

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Triplets wrote:

I just thought if I added something that wasn’t part of the original I should disclose it.

Again, why? To who? Who else does? Why?

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Dennis I would think calling it by it's actual name would be germane and appropriate...
That being the "Delicate Arch"
Which is a 52-foot-tall (16 m) freestanding natural arch located in Arches National Park, near Moab in Grand County, Utah, United States.

This is keeping with that fact it this arch is the most widely recognized landmark in Arches National Park and is depicted on Utah license plates and a postage stamp commemorating Utah's centennial anniversary of admission to the Union. The Olympic torch relay for the 2002 Winter Olympics passed through the arch.

To do otherwise may be considered by some as a travesty of this iconic symbol America's heritage...

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought Dennis
btw, during the summer, white-throated swifts (Aeronautes saxatalis) nest in the top of this arch...
They are simply breathtaking in flight!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BebuLamar wrote:

You just post it. You don't need to call it anything.

rwm283main Loc: Terryville, CT

Steve DeMott wrote:

Let them guess.

On a personal note! I like both versions, but I lean towards the first one. The arch seems more pronounced and the eyes target the arch then the mountains behind. The 2nd appears somewhat cluttered. The eyes wonder around the image.
Just my opinion and I may be wrong

I tend to agree with Steve, your subject stands out very prominently in photo #1. In my opinion I see no reason why you need to disclose anything if #2 is posted on a social media site or otherwise. It's a piece of artwork that you've created.
Nice work!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

woodyH wrote:

Woody here. Well, you couldn't call it your photograph, but if you call it a photo-based illustration (which you contrived) you wouldn't be debasing your moral position. But then, on social media, whom of them look long enough to generate a thought deeper than, oh nice, and move on to what they were there for, to have their own say.

Well, if they are HIS sky and HIS arch images, it AIN'T Ralph's photo.
Where are the rules that one has to declare than an image was manipulated?
ANY IMAGE run through an editor IS MANIPULATED. So THOSE must be declared also, correct???