Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballboy828
Image trickery has not been invented with digital, only simplified. People messed with images all the time before. Because of our current lack of darkroom, we must edit images. I'm not a cloning advocate (unless a client asks for retouching on a portrait). But exposure techniques such as HDR are totally legitimate. So are dodging and burning, and all kinds of other exposure adjustments that derive from film. Someone who is a heavy user of full-manual film cameras might say that shooting with an autofocus, autometering digital body is cheating. It's all in perspective. Changing the content of an image is wrong (cloning, etc.) unless it's for skin in portraits. Photoshop is just another creative technique. The HDRs that run totally wild with contrast and light-smoothing are art, not photographs. A well done HDR looks like an impossibly exposed photograph to the trained eye. I agree that my HDR is a little on the fake side. It was somewhat rushed, and therefore not as good as I'd like. But really. One who drastically changes their image in photoshop and then claims it's real is a cheater. But someone who makes a natural image with a few exposure/color tweaks is not. Just my opinion.
|
Well think about this as you said in the dark room they had some changes , i agree with that but Photoshop is a program where you can pratcially Create new images from scratch, you can change the color of objects, make things appear to be moving, add flare, soo many things are possible i dont think the old photographers had that ability....