[Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awards
and Disqualification Discusion
travelgirl.fics at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 09:04:46 PST 2014
I suppose it depends on your definition of "photograph" versus "digital
mine definition? if i clone away dust bunnies, crop, or maybe apply a bit
of sharpness, to me it's still a photograph. the image is as i saw it.
if, however, i alter the shape(s) of something, alter colours (obvious
saturation, HDR, etc) and/or clone away distracting poles, buildings,
trees, etc, what you would see is no longer as i saw it, and therefore,
while it may be beautiful, interesting, etc, it is a digital image, an
interpretation that is no longer a photograph.
this definition is mine, and while shared by many, is not a universal
definition. as well, some folks today believe "photograph" == "digital
image", that there may be no inherent difference between the two.
your mileage may vary.
george davis creek, north fork
On 25 January 2014 03:04, <notcalm at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hello Fellow Tweeters,
> There is an interesting discussion regarding alteration of bird
> photographs and rules for the Annual Photo Contest in the current issue
> (January, 2014) of Audubon magazine. A great image was disqualified. I am
> interested in what Tweeter's community members think. I think it is an
> interesting question.
> Many of our best single images of birds and humans are now modified and
> enhanced to varying degrees. This a now a routine practice for images of
> female models in fashion magazines. The controversies in many fields,
> including bird photography include: when should it be disclosed; at what
> level of change, including enhancement; and what image enhancements should
> be considered in photo contests. The Audubon Editor asks for feedback.
> Dan Reiff
> Mercer Island
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tweeters