Do you welcome others to edit your photos?
Jan 17, 2014 12:26:25 #
why would you upload a picture onto a site like this without expecting a critique to be posted? bearing in mind the number of times a photo has been unsolicitedly 'fixed' and re-posted, surely if you object strongly to this action you should desist posting photos. Too many people want there to be rules to save them from their own foolishness.
Beware...there be dragons here
Beware...there be dragons here
Jan 17, 2014 15:06:18 #
I am not offended, but really appreciate anyone who takes their time to try to offer advise to help someone else improve. We all come from different backgrounds & life experiences, & we all have our weaknesses and strengths.
Post processing is widely misunderstood, a JPG straight out of the camera is not pure it was processed by the camera in the same way a roll of 35mm film sent to a lab..gets processed before the final print.
Having grown up with family members who worked at small and large photo labs, I knew early on that when people sent in their negatives..that processing was being done. I learned to airbrush photos for retouching (adding hair-removing divorcee-glare off glasses and colorizing black and white), where the lab would make another negative and develop off that.
So to me, we can learn to do our own processing, or let the camera and lab decide it for us.
I agree this is a benefit of being a part of this forum,& I especially enjoy the C&C section, because they edit and explain how they did it. I have been amazed at how many times a Perfect picture (in my eyes), has had obvious flaws pointed out-or-has been improved by one or more members.
Just my 2cents
Post processing is widely misunderstood, a JPG straight out of the camera is not pure it was processed by the camera in the same way a roll of 35mm film sent to a lab..gets processed before the final print.
Having grown up with family members who worked at small and large photo labs, I knew early on that when people sent in their negatives..that processing was being done. I learned to airbrush photos for retouching (adding hair-removing divorcee-glare off glasses and colorizing black and white), where the lab would make another negative and develop off that.
So to me, we can learn to do our own processing, or let the camera and lab decide it for us.
I agree this is a benefit of being a part of this forum,& I especially enjoy the C&C section, because they edit and explain how they did it. I have been amazed at how many times a Perfect picture (in my eyes), has had obvious flaws pointed out-or-has been improved by one or more members.
Just my 2cents
ggttc wrote:
Like many other hoggers, I welcome others to edit ... (show quote)
Jan 17, 2014 15:14:22 #
pithydoug wrote:
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:
Pithy, never dawned on me(get it, dawned?) that somebody might actually PUT something IN it before they smoked it.
I see you're point, but it's a little hazy! :lol:
SS
Jan 17, 2014 15:36:56 #
If I post a picture and someone tries to improve it, then by all means go for it.
Jan 17, 2014 16:18:37 #
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. Members who do not bother to read the site regulations or who respond without properly reading other members' contributions cannot blame UHH or fellow contributors.
But what about ethical issues behind the thread question...? This had 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 forums like UHH.
It is also unquestionably subjective with professionals in a proper print publication submission where photographs are 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 inherently minimal. 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 photography. This has challenged the values and validity of professionals and re-badged 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 image..?
How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered a watercolour wash'...?
Needless to point out too that an artist, professional or amateur, 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 the structure of a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or by 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...?
Unless a painter or photographer has surrendered an image, is not the point at issue in this thread a question of morality...? It might take more thought and effort, but isn't it more valuable that we comment, remark, argue our responses using articulate language in conversation or on record in a public forum like this...?
Can it be that image appropriation by UHH members, complacently or otherwise, is a default position?
We do not enjoy universally accepted IP standards. There seems to be only lip service given to the relevant UHH rules, with no due democratic process on this site. Any didactic, righteous response is meaningless. If some UHH members are happy to let their images be used, exploited or abused 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..?
.
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. Members who do not bother to read the site regulations or who respond without properly reading other members' contributions cannot blame UHH or fellow contributors.
But what about ethical issues behind the thread question...? This had 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 forums like UHH.
It is also unquestionably subjective with professionals in a proper print publication submission where photographs are 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 inherently minimal. 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 photography. This has challenged the values and validity of professionals and re-badged 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 image..?
How would tempered media artists respond if you took a scalpel and thinners brush to their framed oil triptych, or 'altered a watercolour wash'...?
Needless to point out too that an artist, professional or amateur, 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 the structure of a Van Gogh or Norman Lindsay painting, or by 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...?
Unless a painter or photographer has surrendered an image, is not the point at issue in this thread a question of morality...? It might take more thought and effort, but isn't it more valuable that we comment, remark, argue our responses using articulate language in conversation or on record in a public forum like this...?
Can it be that image appropriation by UHH members, complacently or otherwise, is a default position?
We do not enjoy universally accepted IP standards. There seems to be only lip service given to the relevant UHH rules, with no due democratic process on this site. Any didactic, righteous response is meaningless. If some UHH members are happy to let their images be used, exploited or abused 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..?
.
Jan 17, 2014 16:33:01 #
theobennett wrote:
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..?
.
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..?
.
Site rules say No Editing and Reposting unless specifically requested. Therefore, unless the OP states plainly that they want us to post our edits, then it is against Forum Rules.
Jan 17, 2014 16:59:26 #
theobennett
Loc: Sumatra
Please read my complete post 'wahawk'. I read yours. In my contribution to the thread I courteously credited you with your reference.
Jan 17, 2014 17:00:20 #
Jan 17, 2014 17:02:10 #
Jan 17, 2014 17:02:31 #
Jan 17, 2014 17:14:01 #
[quote=ggttc]To me, the HOG is the best place to learn. The best way to learn is to allow others to tackle your artwork. I have learned the most this way. Some are here to show snapshots of their pets and grandchildren. David
Jan 17, 2014 17:22:59 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
G Brown wrote:
why would you upload a picture onto a site like this without expecting a critique to be posted? bearing in mind the number of times a photo has been unsolicitedly 'fixed' and re-posted, surely if you object strongly to this action you should desist posting photos. Too many people want there to be rules to save them from their own foolishness.
Beware...there be dragons here
Beware...there be dragons here
I think there is a difference between a critique and an edit. If I hold up a print at a camera club meeting, I also want a critique, but they're not going to take a sharpie and start drawing on it.
Jan 17, 2014 17:24:59 #
amehta wrote:
I think there is a difference between a critique and an edit. If I hold up a print at a camera club meeting, I also want a critique, but they're not going to take a sharpie and start drawing on it.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 17, 2014 17:51:33 #
Jan 17, 2014 17:52:11 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.