RE: [AGA-Contest] opinion needed

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Phil Edwards wrote:

> Philosphical question.  Is it wrong to digitally remove equipment when it's 
> ok to physically remove it?  As long as nothing else has been changed to 
> amplify what is already there I don't see that it's wrong.

The problem is that it's a slippery slope.  To remove equipment means you 
need to clone something else from the picture in its place.  What about 
digitally removing equipment that cannot be physically removed?  How about 
retouching out algae from the glass too?  Or digitally removing 
bad-looking plant leaves?  Or cloning in plant leaves to make it fuller?

The problem here (as you know) is that we're not judging the design as 
100% of the points.  A good portion of this is in the execution.

So the rule we came up with was that it has to be a picture of what's 
really there.

>  Likewise, is it 
> wrong to change the color of a photograph to reflect what it looks like in 
> real life?  As long as things aren't taken past reality, is that wrong?

Again, same deal.  What is "what it looks like in real life"?  A lot of 
pictures I see (and take for that matter) look better than they do in 
person to me.  But everyone is different.

My take on it is: Adjusting the color balance on the whole photo is 
fine...that's what cameras (and your eyes) do anyway, and that's what the 
camera shop has been doing for years on prints.  But I think once you 
start getting into tweaking certain areas of the photo, you're getting 
into the art of the photograph more than the aquascape itself.

  - Erik

--
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com
_______________________________________________
AGA-Contest mailing list
AGA-Contest@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-contest