mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I would prefer having someone offer me suggestions either on-line of through private Email, I do look for ideas to help me improve

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

The problem with your statements is that Forum Rules state that you are not to edit anyone's photos here unless they give permission first.

Anyone that wants to freely give that permission should include it in the text of their post, or in their "signature tag line" which shows at the bottom of each of their posts and comments.

The issue comes down to 1) Forum Rules, and 2) Common Courtesy (which is quickly becoming a thing of the past)

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

The key to editing others photos and re-posting is that it is against Forum Rules.
Unless the OP asks for someone to edit and re-post, it is against Forum Rules.
Use "common courtesy" and ASK FIRST!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

SS, depends on what is inside the roll. A little medical cannabis inside a beautiful sunrise - a lift with a view. Classy EZ-widers. :lol:

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

If someone downloaded one of my photos, and put it on a billboard advertising their business, I might even consider a "drive-by" myself.

MagicFad Loc: Clermont, FL

I welcome it when I ask for variations of my work, otherwise it is common courtesy to ask before editing and posting.

theobennett Loc: Sumatra

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...?

This is a compex issue.

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, preach or attempt to teach." 

Surly a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other teacher must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

If it is implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever, then so be it.  But at the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself..?
.

theobennett Loc: Sumatra

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...? This is a compex issue. 'Wahawk's point is valid. This site's caveat is important

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, preach or attempt to teach." 

Surly a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other teacher must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

It is neither stated nor implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever.  At the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself.
.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

If I don't specify, such as in critique forum, then I want to be asked first.

I wasn't into pp much at all just a couple of months ago, and if someone took half an hour on an image of mine and then explained it in all kinds of terminology I wasn't familiar with, then it would have been overwhelming instead of inspiring.

I prefer to learn in baby steps, so I very much appreciate participation when at my request :)

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

If I post in the critique section I always include in my post that I give permission for others to edit. If someone has some suggestions about a better crop or some other improvement I like to see it and have it explained. I am also interested in others' interpretations of my photos. And if by chance I can help someone else, it's easier to explain if you can offer an illustration. Yes, the jpegs we must use to edit photos downloaded from UHH won't hold up to much, but this type of editing is not for print purposes, it is simply to illustrate something that's hard to completely describe in words.

If I post in the gallery it is just for sharing, and I do not ask for or expect other edits. I am not selling anything so I am not particularly possessive about my photos. I'd probably be flattered if somebody stole one (unless they made some money from it, then I'd pitch a fit for my share)

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Cracks me up that people put images in the critique sections and then ask for you to not touch them. Someone taking a marker to a physical print or illustration, etc. would be inappropriate, but an electronic example really never touches the original- I say have at it and show/prove what you are talking about- I don't have to agree- you never touched my original! When we passed in a piece or presented a layout, it a piece of transparent tissue was mounted over the board, markers, pencil, etc directions were written on top- your original work was not touched... that is what messing with someones electronic image is- a virtual tissue paper.

Asking someone NOT to edit a photo transfers the onus of you taking the considerable amount of time to explain your suggestions of the steps it would take in writing... in a way that explains sufficiently to where that person might actually take the time to envision it or try your steps. People who ask for no edits, will rarely, if ever take the time to do either.

They are really exclaiming " what-do-you-think,I think-it's-perfect-the-way-it-is-and-I-don't-want-to-see your-ideas-because-I-don't-want-you-to-prove-you-can-improve-my-work-and-i-don't-really-care-what-you-have-to-say-isn't-it-beautiful!.

I also have issue with obviously exceptional images being put up that need no critique that do not pose an issue or particular question they want input on, they are looking to show off or for stroking. I blanket ignore all these types of images, and spend my time on those who genuinely show promise and have an honest question to ask suggestions or input about - that is what a critique is.

theobennett Loc: Sumatra

I agree. :)

theobennett Loc: Sumatra

Quite right too.. :thumbup: :!:

theobennett Loc: Sumatra

Nice, easy  responses.

Or are they...? This is a compex issue. Even if - or because - there are some UHH members so cynical they don't take their photography,  and thereby their photographs
in any  way seriously.

'Wahawk' is right of course. UHH site rules are clear. All else is plagiarism

But what about the ethical issue behind the thread question...? It has become 
a problem since the mass acceptance of digital photography and the slick
 unaccountability of the Interweb.

Physically engaging with an  image to the point of altering or modifying it is always a subjective  action, even if done with 'good intention'; or on request, by a misunderstanding of implied acquiesence in a forum such as  this - or with jusifiable profesionals, in a proper print publication submission and sub-edited by a design journalist in an environment where genuine digital image file sizes are mandatory to allow cropping to publication style,  story relevance and page space. That said, art department embellishment and, or alteration is expected to be at a minimum. The photographer must keep IQ in mind at all times as well as envisage, take, and submit as expressively good an image as quickly as possible, often within minutes of taking a sequence. 

Blogs, Vanity Publishing and so much of Interweb imagery can be mostly cathartic hobby   indulgence.  Digital technology  and 'politically correct ' cultural shifts have changed the economics of amateur photography. But there are delineations: Would you be so crass as to take a marker pen to a salon or photo club print exhibition to demonstrate how 'better' you would have presented  a mounted iage..?

How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered the wash' on a watercolour..?

Needless to point out too that an artist might not enjoy you removing, copying, using or modfying an image.

Viewng, analysing, appreciating and  commenting on images - be they tempered, photographic or any graphic art form is splendid and commendable interaction.  Many artists, critics, reviewers and interested experts have written about this. In words. But  not usually by changing a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or manipulating a Man Ray or Cartier  Breson photograph with potassium ferricyanide, or by removing or adding detail to a published or exhibited print collection. That would be an arrogance beyond the dictum that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, either preach or attempt to teach." 

Surely a good art commentator and teacher  - or any other tutor  must so understand what they are doing, saying, that they can explain it objectively in Plain English....?

But  uness we are students at university,  or art school, technical college - or below - surely an image has the right to  live as it was  envisaged, expressed, presented by the person who made it...?

Is it not more valuable that we comment, remark, argue responses using articulate language....?

If it is implicit on this site that members' images are to be used unconditionally, freely, by whomever, then so be it.  But at the very least, common courtesy and social ethics demand acknowledgement of both the photographer and the Ugly Hedgehog source site itself..?