Architecture & nature

[Spam]

I think you meant 1/100

George

Indeed. Thanks for the correction, George.

[Mike Buckley]

That's why we have a 'perspective correction' tool available to us. It's not in the least unethical and is what every pro would do.

It would be interesting to learn the ethics of photo journalism about that. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that digitally correcting the perspective is forbidden in that type of photography.

[John 2]

Two very nice shots Simon. The conversions are particularly effective.

It would be interesting to learn the ethics of photo journalism about that. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that digitally correcting the perspective is forbidden in that type of photography.

I don't know of course Mike but I can't see why that would be. I can understand there being an objection to PP applied to a record image that ends up portraying the subject in a none representative way but not where the correction increases the accuracy in terms what was actually there.

[george013]

It would be interesting to learn the ethics of photo journalism about that. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that digitally correcting the perspective is forbidden in that type of photography.

I looked at the site of world press photo and found this http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites...l%20report.pdf

In this article, chapter 10, it is said

The
research found a de facto global consensus: that manipulation—meaning
material change to an image through the addition or subtraction of
content—is widely deemed to be unacceptable for news and documentary pictures.

Bold is mine. Subtraction doesn't mean cropping. In some examples I found that by example when leveling an image cropping the image so that the white parts are out of it is allowed, but filling them with content, cloning, is forbidden. I can't find anything about pespective correction but I presume it's the same as with leveling.
Some more for those who are interested http://www.worldpressphoto.org/activ...s-manipulation

George

[NorthernFocus]

Both photos are nicely done and I like the processing. Excellent detail in both. Great clouds in the second shot. Well done.

[Spam]

Thanks for your comments, George and John. I know that there are some areas which are definite no-nos in news photography (such as cloning), but apparently some newspapers even forbid changing the white balance of a pic (although they have no problems with converting colour to monochrome!). Go figure.

I don't want to turn this thread into something else, and I need to research these things more thoroughly for a course I'm teaching in July, so let me first get it straight and I'll start a new thread about it in the not-too-distant future.

[Spam]

Both photos are nicely done and I like the processing. Excellent detail in both. Great clouds in the second shot. Well done.

Thanks, Dan. Appreciate your comment.

[Wavelength]

Mike, thank you very much

Simon, thank you so much

I am really glad,now i know the rule

[IzzieK]

Let me understand this process --you take a shot of real object/subject,e.g. a beautiful building, it was toppling a little bit or leaning one way and it doesn't even resemble the reality of what you took an image of; you processed it with the perspective control tool so that it will look upright the way you saw it, BUT processing make it unacceptable? I am confused...

And oh, if this is the situation, I will be free from Dave H trying to ask me and teach me how to correct my image to make it look like how I saw it in real life....because I used my UWA lens and didn't know how to correct it properly...Yeyyyy!!! (On the other hand, is that good for me for my learning experience or not? I really do not like this, should not like this because I came here to learn...)

Correcting a perspective is NOT the same as "staging a shot"...

Thanks for your comments, George and John. I know that there are some areas which are definite no-nos in news photography (such as cloning), but apparently some newspapers even forbid changing the white balance of a pic (although they have no problems with converting colour to monochrome!). Go figure.

I don't want to turn this thread into something else, and I need to research these things more thoroughly for a course I'm teaching in July, so let me first get it straight and I'll start a new thread about it in the not-too-distant future.

[FootLoose]

Both very good images, Simon, but I am partial to the 2nd. It has all the elements that I like - line, texture, shape and tone, and your processing has made the most of it all. The clouds look they are almost 3D to me.