Disclosure of editing when posting pictures (Page 7): And competitions set the requirement of "exposure". :sm02:...

Stephan G

M3Studios wrote:

I agree with damianlv. Its not submitted in a competition so who cares?

And competitions set the requirement of "exposure".

Stephan G

DirtFarmer wrote:

IMHO, there is art and there is documentation. They are completely different things and subject to different 'rules'.

Yep. The latter sometimes needs to be notarized.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

gvarner wrote:

It doesn’t matter how you got to your destination - driving a stick shift or an automatic - just so you get there. There’s no such thing as an unedited photo since cameras do so much editing internally. SOOC is as close as you can get.

Or what roads one takes.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I see no reason to advise anyone you modified the photograph. This is your photograph and you can do as you please with it. Nobody will take a look at it, unless heavily modified, and think it was SOOC. EVERY photograph is most likely modified in some way. As Basil pointed out, Ansel Adams modified his photographs to make them more appealing. I don't recall anyone complaining they were not SOOC at the time.

One of my own photographs I am proud to have taken is of Mt. Rushmore. It is a black and white but taken in color and then modified. In the photograph the sky is black, the faces are white with shadows around to bring out the faces more clearly. Of course the photo has been modified but for me it is an incredible photo and one of the best I have taken. Must I disclose the original was not black and white, that it was really in color as the world has always been?

The photograph you present is your final version of a vision you have. Someone viewing the photo will like the photo or not.

Dennis

Stephan G

Architect1776 wrote:

HUGE difference between adjusting. Raw actually requires it. But adding elements is falsifying it.
If it is an artistic effort and to get the effect by faking it, fine. Just don't lie about taking the photo seen, call it a composite of a bunch of photos for artistic purposes.

In Art, we create. Or, at least, I do.

If one has the inclination to call something "something", that is acceptable. I prefer, "If you ask me no questions, I will tell you no lies."

Even if you ask me a question, I still will tell you no lies.

On the other hand, "what do you see?" is open to discussion.

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

damianlv wrote:

My question is: when posting my images on social m... (show quote)

Of the two photos you posted, the first appears more interesting and dramatic than the second. There is no rule or law stating you must reveal all, or any, changes you made to the original. It has been argued and discussed here, and on other fora, that photography is an art form. Basing on that, you, as the artist, have the license / right to adjust your work to what you feel and believe will make it the best. Your best is what you decide it to be. You have no obligation to reveal anything you did or may do to a photographic image you take, make, initiate or develop. Make your adjustments, or don't, and let others decide if they like it or not.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Painters can create a scene as they wish. Those who paint with a camera sort of have to take what they get. For years that has been the limitation. For me, it is the limitation. For some, now that we can, they change things at will to create a scene. I don't necessarily think that's wrong. I do think that somehow it should be stated simply because photography has always sort of been "the truth of the matter." When it isn't, but presented as such, photography loses its value (I think). I know most of you do not agree with me, and you want to be able to create anything in a photo, much as a painter would. I understand this. But in my sense of values, then it must be called something other than a photo.

Guyserman Loc: Benton, AR

damianlv wrote:

My question is: when posting my images on social m... (show quote)

You should definitely respond. Say "Thanks for the very nice compliment."
Beautiful image. A wall hanger in my opinion.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you make serious modifications (sky ect) then it is no longer a photograph but photography enhanced art - and labeled as such. Then it is up to the viewer to judge......
My motto - the more HONESTY in the world the better.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

AzPicLady wrote:

Painters can create a scene as they wish. Those w... (show quote)

The things that some people are up in arms about - sky replacement, removing or adding things, were all done in the darkroom since the beginnings of photography. It was just more difficult than it is now. But it has always been a part of photography, and I don't see any reason to call it something different now.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

JohnSwanda wrote:

Photography is so much more than that, always has been.

Yes - I'm well aware that so many are happy to live in a dream world.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

JohnSwanda wrote:

The things that some people are up in arms about - sky replacement, removing or adding things, were all done in the darkroom since the beginnings of photography. It was just more difficult than it is now. But it has always been a part of photography, and I don't see any reason to call it something different now.

Can we trust nothing to be other than untrue?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Delderby wrote:

Can we trust nothing to be other than untrue?

We have never been able to trust photography to be "true". One can be deceptive with photography just by what we decide to include or exclude from the composition, the position of the camera, the timing of the photograph, the type of lens used, etc.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

JohnSwanda wrote:

The things that some people are up in arms about - sky replacement, removing or adding things, were all done in the darkroom since the beginnings of photography. It was just more difficult than it is now. But it has always been a part of photography, and I don't see any reason to call it something different now.

So it's ok for a war correspondent to add a bit more blood to his photo?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Delderby wrote:

So it's ok for a war correspondent to add a bit more blood to his photo?

You really don't know the difference between photojournalism and artistic photography? Photojournalists have been caught altering their photographs in an unethical way, and the consequences are severe.