george_thomas2

I think this will remain a hotly debated topic for some time. Yet it is important to keep in mind the context in which a photo appears and the photographer's original intent.

As for journalistic photography, my opinion is that if an image was digitally manipulated, it should be discounted because it does not accurately represent true events or settings. This can be dangerously misleading to an uneducated public (limitless possibilities here). In a journalistic venue, the accurate recording is lost and may actually misinform.

However, the use of such tools to produce an artistic image for sharing with others should be made acceptable, so long as it is also documented. Artistically an image is the creation of the photographers emotions, desires, and skills. If other means than stardard photography are utilized to bring his/her vision to life more successfully, than so be it.

Also, if the intent of the photograph is solely for the benefit of the photographer or for personal appreciation, then I believe that digital augmentation is not a sin. If a person takes a photograph of a sunset for personal enjoyment, who is to say it is wrong to add some color to make up for a lack of timing or remove an unwanted silouette to better balance the composition?

Just as long as the goals are kept within sight and no one is mislead, I think technological manipulation is a useful tool. The important fact to consider is that it does not become the end instead of the means.

As an amateur, my first camera was my father's Canon AE-1 (non-program). This is, in my opinion, an excellent camera that is built like a grenade with regards to sturdiness, yet is capable of impressively sharp pictures. As an avid backpacker, this body, a 28-2.8, and 50-1.8 FD lenses are perfect for landscapes. With the concern of weight everpresent, this skeleton outfit is adequate for a week's worth of picturetaking, if coupled with a lightweight tripod such as Bogen 3001 series. My canon lacks miror lock-up and multi-metering choices, but does have DOF preview and a myriad of inexpensive lens choices. The only question you must ask yourself is "How much do I want to carry?" The totally manual nature of the camera, availability of lens options, and rugged structure of the body all work out to a nice outfit that will cost about $400 in exemplary condition. Perhaps the additon of a zoom lens would be nice for wildlife, but sticking with inexpensive wide lenses for landscapes and nighttime star shots with a cable release is the prudent choice for light weight without the light pocketbook!