I am probably as qualified, at least technically, to answer this and any other question you all may want to throw at me. Why? I work as a digital imaging technician for a living! I know a lot of this has delved into ethics, but for now I would like to clarify a few things that I hope will help out on the technical side.
<p>
First, anyone who believes they will not have anything to do with digital imaging in photography had better not plan on having any photos published. Why? With rare exception all photos prepared for publication (pre-press) are scanned and then "manipulated" for final output. What this means is you sell a photo. The buyer gives the photo to someone who scans it (not simple $2/1mb scans like on CD ROM's, usually 40mb and up) creating a file which is then adjusted (manipulated, altered, enhanced, choose your term) for press to how the art director (or similar title) sees fit. Usually, especially in nature photography, the alteration is minimal. But unless you are quite powerful, or you do your own scanning and pre-press, you will have little or no say in what occurs.
<p>
This is not a new item. It has been going on before Adobe Photoshop came into being. Before that, Scitex, Barco and other systems/programs did similar work preparing photos for print. Just in the last few years with the advent and power of computers and such programs as Photoshop has this overtaken copy work and similar old fashion printing. Mostly due to cost.
<p>
As far as what can be done. Let's not kid ourselves on the other side of things. I love it when people say, "nothing can be done in the computer that can't be done (better...) in the darkroom." This is absurd. The computer and many of the current programs of today are amazingly powerful with the ability to create seamless results. Once you have worked on a powerful system with large files you will immediatly see what I say. Pete's problem is an easy one to fix. Art Wolfe's Zebras would not even be that hard. Nor would cloning those shoes onto OJ, though who knows what really was done there.
<p>
One last thing for now, so I don't babble on and on here! Whether we like it or not, digital imaging is here to stay. It is very healthy that we discuss the ethics of it, because I can guarantee you, as one who went from printing and processing for a few years to a guaranteed career in computer work, nothing anyone says will diminish the growth of this field. As such, for my two cents worth. I don't really care what you do to your photos in the computer, because I know most photos that are printed go through the computer anyway, just be immdiatly upfront about what you did when anyone asks. For me that holds ethical principle.
Image manipulation, ethics and all.
in Nature
Posted
Pete and others,
<p>
Sorry if this appears twice! It glitched on me!
<p>
I am probably as qualified, at least technically, to answer this and any other question you all may want to throw at me. Why? I work as a digital imaging technician for a living! I know a lot of this has delved into ethics, but for now I would like to clarify a few things that I hope will help out on the technical side.
<p>
First, anyone who believes they will not have anything to do with digital imaging in photography had better not plan on having any photos published. Why? With rare exception all photos prepared for publication (pre-press) are scanned and then "manipulated" for final output. What this means is you sell a photo. The buyer gives the photo to someone who scans it (not simple $2/1mb scans like on CD ROM's, usually 40mb and up) creating a file which is then adjusted (manipulated, altered, enhanced, choose your term) for press to how the art director (or similar title) sees fit. Usually, especially in nature photography, the alteration is minimal. But unless you are quite powerful, or you do your own scanning and pre-press, you will have little or no say in what occurs.
<p>
This is not a new item. It has been going on before Adobe Photoshop came into being. Before that, Scitex, Barco and other systems/programs did similar work preparing photos for print. Just in the last few years with the advent and power of computers and such programs as Photoshop has this overtaken copy work and similar old fashion printing. Mostly due to cost.
<p>
As far as what can be done. Let's not kid ourselves on the other side of things. I love it when people say, "nothing can be done in the computer that can't be done (better...) in the darkroom." This is absurd. The computer and many of the current programs of today are amazingly powerful with the ability to create seamless results. Once you have worked on a powerful system with large files you will immediatly see what I say. Pete's problem is an easy one to fix. Art Wolfe's Zebras would not even be that hard. Nor would cloning those shoes onto OJ, though who knows what really was done there.
<p>
One last thing for now, so I don't babble on and on here! Whether we like it or not, digital imaging is here to stay. It is very healthy that we discuss the ethics of it, because I can guarantee you, as one who went from printing and processing for a few years to a guaranteed career in computer work, nothing anyone says will diminish the growth of this field. As such, for my two cents worth. I don't really care what you do to your photos in the computer, because I know most photos that are printed go through the computer anyway, just be immdiatly upfront about what you did when anyone asks. For me that holds ethical principle.