Photography on steroids

[another view]

Yeah, this one might be at the top of the list for awhile if you know what I mean...

The short answer for me is that if you can do it in a darkroom, it's OK to do it in Photoshop. Other stuff too depending on circumstances. That also goes for some things you would do at time of exposure such as multiple exposures.

Personally, I draw the line at - for example - adding a full moon to a landscape shot. I did it once with film just to see how bad it really would look and was not disappointed! I don't do that with any form of photography (I shoot both film and digital). I also might clone out things like dust and lens flare or the blue wristband that was on my right wrist in my new avatar shot (long boring story). The recent LA Times story about the faked image from Iraq is really bad. My problem with that shot is that it was presented as the truth but obviously wasn't.

Some people don't realize that unsharp masking was originally done in the darkroom long before Photoshop existed. I don't have enough darkroom training to tell you exactly how it was done, but it's a similar result with a lot less work. That's probably true of most things in Photoshop. I have no problem with RAW and deciding the color temperature, etc of the image later. Some people may, but whenever you shoot color neg film and take it to a lab, they make all kinds of "corrections" - including filtering for color temperature - in printing.

[Michael Fanelli]

Personally, I draw the line at - for example - adding a full moon to a landscape shot. I did it once with film just to see how bad it really would look and was not disappointed!

FWIW, Ansel Adams did modifications such as this all the time ("Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" is his most famous composite). I can't really express my disappointment!

[Chunk]

FWIW, Ansel Adams did modifications such as this all the time ("Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" is his most famous composite). I can't really express my disappointment!

I know that AA did extensive manipulation while printing to get his preconcieved images, but I don't think that "Moonrise..." is a composite. Here's the sort of story I have always heard regarding that shot (partway down the page).
http://www.aristos.org/whatart/adams.htm

BTW, you can buy your own copy of this famous print here.
http://www.anseladams.com/product3.aspx?Product_ID=1570

[another view]

FWIW, Ansel Adams did modifications such as this all the time ("Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" is his most famous composite). I can't really express my disappointment!

Actually, no - it's not a composite. According to his autobiography, he had to quickly set up his 8x10 camera to capture the scene before anything changed. Setting up an 8x10 isn't exactly like whipping out an SLR, and the moon (seemingly) moves very fast at the horizon.

At least since he developed the Zone System, none of his negatives were ever intended for straight printing (that I'm aware of, but I wouldn't call myself an authority either). He never added something that wasn't on the negative or took anything away either.

I do have to re-think this whole composite thing though - when I shoot slide film, I sometimes use a graduated neutral density filter. When I shoot digital, I'd prefer to take two exposures (one for highlights, one for shadows) and combine them in Photoshop. I have more control with this - for example, ever wish the GND filter was just a little higher in the otherwise perfect shot ? Since nothing changed in the scene between the two exposures, it doesn't bother me but I guess I've also not really thought about it in this context before either. You could do this technique with either scanned film or digital capture, so it's not a film vs. digital thing. The final image would be represented as a "truthful" image - if it's done well it should look unaltered. This technique would be done only to compensate for the lack of exposure latitude available with either the film or digital sensor. Any other thoughts on this?