David,

There's been a lot of discussion recently on the uw-photo list of what
constitutes "acceptable" modifications of a photographic image.
Opinions vary all the way from "anything goes" to "none", but there
seems to be a rough consensus among many of the posters about where the
line between acceptable and unacceptable should be.

Most (including me) consider Photoshop adjustments using L(evels or
C(urves to enhance (or restore) contrast and correct artificial color
casts within bounds, as well as use of the UnSharp filter to make the
image a bit crisper, and of course cropping.  These all have analogues
among standard darkroom techniques in generating prints.
Personally, I'm shooting slides and then scanning them, so the
objective is often simply to restore the original color values that
were present in the original slide which often get lost in the process
of scanning. (I keep the original on the light table next to the
computer while I'm working.)

Most also accept use of the stamp tool to remove bits of snow or
defects such as scratches or dirt on the lens or the slide.  Deleting
major elements of an image is _not_ acceptable to many photographers,
and adding (or combining) significant features from another photograph
is certainly beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned, unless the final
result is going to be clearly presented as a collage or composite
image.

The intended use of the image is obviously an important consideration.
I would have trouble with idea of removing background material for a
photograph that was to be presented "as a photograph" (in which you are
implicitly saying:  this is what I saw), but I probably wouldn't mind
it if the final product was intended purely to be used for id purposes
- particularly if it is going to be reproduced at a relatively small
size.

Frogfish (Robert Delfs)

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:29:55 +1100, David Strike wrote:

>Having seen, for example, some of Christians U/W pics - as well as those
>taken by folks like, Viv, Bjorn, John Nitrox, Crusty, et al - I have some
>hesitancy about the validity of enhancing some of the digital pics that I've
>taken over the past few weeks. (Even assuming that I can master how to do
>it!) :-)
>
>Is it acceptable to use, for example, Adobe Photo Shop, to remove specks of
>particulate matter in the water so that it's possible to get a more
>realistic image of a fish, (or whatever)?  And having done that, to remove
>background images that detract from the main subject matter? :-)
>
>The shots that I have in mind are not 'Great' pictures in terms of creative
>effort, but they'll look a hell of a lot better in terms of using them as an
>I.D. index without the distractions that the heavy February rains have
>brought to the waters around our part of the coastline.  :-)
>
>Advice and comments will be most welcome.  :-)
>
>Strike


Robert Delfs
Reply to:  <[log in to unmask]>
Tel:    +852 2812-6290
Fax:   +852 2812-6970