hemkuta

[drjskatre]

canon 550d, canon 18-55, f/10, 1/50, iso-200
..an image from an ancient city of Vijayanagara lost in fourteenth century..it is a huge city located in Karnataka, India

[Donald]

Jitendra

Firstly, I think this is a wonderfully composed image and gives us not a pleasing picturfe to look at, but also provides a document that informs us about part of the history of India.

I see that you shot it at 18mm. I wonder if it would benefit from a distortion correction that would see the vertical lines on the right hand side of the building being brought back up to the vertical?

[drjskatre]

hello Donald,
thanks for the comment..
i am in two minds...i am hearing contrasting opinions about digital corrections,.... personally i am in favor of such corrections,and i believe in creating something beautiful, but lot of people don't seem like the idea,...how ethical are digital manipulations? and to what extent?..please help me to clear this dilemma.

[Dave Humphries]

how ethical are digital manipulations? and to what extent?..please help me to clear this dilemma.

That's a big question, bigger than I am going to attempt to answer ...


... except to say;
when you, or anyone else, stands there, will they perceive the wall leaning like that?
No, they won't
Therefore it is entirely ethical to correct it
(it is effectively a feature of the recording and display mechanisms)

There are other threads here discussing this topic, sorry I don't have time to find a few links for you right now.
Try a search on "ethic".

Cheers,

[Donald]

Jitendra

Primarily for the reason Dave sets out, I believe it is a perfectly reasonable post-processing activity to undertake.

You applied creative and technical skill to capture the image in the first place. You have the right to similarly apply creativity and technical skill in the next stage of the process, which is post-processing. Indeed, in pursuit of an accurate documentary record of the building, I would suggest it was incumbent upon you to do so.

By doing so, you are not altering reality. Indeed, you are using your skills to properly represent reality.

But if we wish to move from merely the accurate rendering of the architecture for historical and documentary purposes, to a broader discussion of the photographer's rights in terms of the image-making process (which has been the subject of previous threads on here), then unless you are engaged in journalistic or some other documentary-making activity, in which case your responsibility is to always reproduce the scene as it existed at the time your shot it, then the image is yours to do with what you wish. You cannot process such an image to the extent that what you then present is an inaccurate record of the scene at the time of capture.

As to all other work, there may be debates engendered by artistic interpretation, but no-one can tell you that what you have done is right or wrong. It is your image; your property, to do with what you wish. We can disagree on your artistic interpretation and your choices as you how best process the work. But I cannot tell you that you are wrong.

[drjskatre]

thank you very much Dave and Donald, for very valuable and useful inputs....