Is this acceptable

[Birdsnapper]

Originally Posted by Snowyowl

I stand by what I said in Post #26. If the photographer is trying to portray a specific event etc for posterity, then accuracy is vital. That is where ethics do come in. Beyond that anything goes. I didn't use the term "artistic license" but obviously that's what it is and it comes into every picture that we decide to edit.

Agreed. Well put.

[walwyn]

Originally Posted by Snowyowl

I stand by what I said in Post #26. If the photographer is trying to portray a specific event etc for posterity, then accuracy is vital. That is where ethics do come in. Beyond that anything goes. I didn't use the term "artistic license" but obviously that's what it is and it comes into every picture that we decide to edit.

I recall saying in one of the other threads that it is a question of what is being claimed for the image, not the image itself.

Then there were the complaints about the images coming out of Lebanon last year, where some were saying that smoke had been darkened, flames brightened, toys placed in and amongst rubble.

[mcliu]

I am following this thread with a great interest.So many views and perceptives,I amazed to know what other think about the issue..??.Now many questions which use to bother me a lot.Is being answered.Previously when I click a snap I do not bother ,I was havily dependent on PS.Now I am more restrained.I work hard on my picture.Change in mindset,isn't it?

[gordon g]

Originally Posted by mcliu

I am following this thread with a great interest.So many views and perceptives,I amazed to know what other think about the issue..??.Now many questions which use to bother me a lot.Is being answered.Previously when I click a snap I do not bother ,I was havily dependent on PS.Now I am more restrained.I work hard on my picture.Change in mindset,isn't it?

Getting it right in-camera has always been time well-spent. It used to save film wastage and reshoots, now it saves time in front of the monitor!