Photo editing (Page 3): I don't understand the question. So magazine would not accept her photo because it was edited what does it has to do with me? Queen Elizabeth was a photographer...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Main Photography Discussion

Photo editing.

Page <<first <prev 3 of 14 next> last>>

Mar 12, 2024 07:42:29 #

BebuLamar

Anthony padua wrote:

Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers

I don't understand the question. So magazine would not accept her photo because it was edited what does it has to do with me? Queen Elizabeth was a photographer too and I don't think she submited her photos to any magazine.

Mar 12, 2024 07:45:55 #

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BebuLamar wrote:

I don't understand the question. So magazine would not accept her photo because it was edited what does it has to do with me?

If you don't submit stuff to the media, nothing.
Some here do though.
Who said the question applies to everyone?

Mar 12, 2024 07:49:55 #

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Anthony padua wrote:

Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers

Everywhere I submit a photo for publication, it is rejected because they say it needs more editing, lots more . . . . . <grin>
Best Wishes Kate,
JimmyT Sends

Mar 12, 2024 07:50:53 #

jrvinson45 Loc: Buckeye, AZ

How did anyone find out about the rejection? Perhaps someone who knows photography just did her a favor…regardless of who made the image, it’s never too late to serve as a bad example.🧐

Mar 12, 2024 07:53:28 #

doclrb

Anthony padua wrote:

Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers

Referring you to the definition of internet troll.

Mar 12, 2024 08:19:43 #

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Anthony padua wrote:

Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers

Sorry, I have a life and could care less about folks who are rich beyond my dreams.

Mar 12, 2024 08:27:56 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

charles brown wrote:

As for me I have no problem with people editing their photographs to suit their particular vision or need. It is people who do so but do not inform the recipient or public that the photo has been edited. In some instances, it may be necessary to describe the edits made. In the future I can see photography contests to select the best use of AI for the final image.

I strongly suggest that if a claim of SOOC is not made, then you can assume the photo was edited. Most if not all serious photographers today consider taking the picture only the very beginning of the process.

Mar 12, 2024 08:38:48 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Cherihorn wrote:

I think most people have missed the point that in journalism there is to be no photoshopping. Do it all you want for yourself, etc. but not if it is to be published in newspapers etc. We want that level of integrity.

There is no integrity in newspapers. Photoshopping has little to do with it. Most of the "integrity" would be found on the editors floor.
“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Mar 12, 2024 08:39:50 #

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

CHG_CANON wrote:

Didn't she read the Reuters' guidelines about manipulating photos? Jeez, that's been in place since 2015 and the issue has been up wandering around as a zombie thread currently on the UHH mustard pages....

Not zombie thread, just zombie "news."

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-801131-1.html

.

Mar 12, 2024 08:42:42 #

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

jrvinson45 wrote:

How did anyone find out about the rejection? ...

It was published, then it was pulled.

"The image of a smiling Catherine, Princess of Wales, flanked by her three children, should have put a stop to the explosion of speculation over her health and whereabouts. Instead, it triggered a whole new controversy for Britain’s royal family after multiple global news agencies recalled the image from circulation hours later, citing manipulation concerns."

source, but bold, red are mine.

Mar 12, 2024 08:52:21 #