Why so much Post Production?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhurley

I don't think that's what he's saying, . . .etc

---

It’s my opinion that the EXACT meaning of most of the posts on this thread is fairly obvious.
It is also just as obvious when the intended meaning is intentionally misconstrued, for some reason: interestingly - my opinion is the reason most likely is to continue the “conversation”, perhaps at the cost of the quality thereof.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

It’s my opinion that the EXACT meaning of most of the posts on this thread is fairly obvious.
It is also just as obvious when the intended meaning is intentionally misconstrued, for some reason: interestingly - my opinion is the reason most likely is to continue the “conversation”, perhaps at the cost of the quality thereof.

WW

---

Why have many intentionally misconstructed what I have said in post #1?
Some understood, read post #40.

Please read the edit in post #1.

This is a very interesting thread isn't it?
Have you seen what National Geographic have to say about post production on images submitted to them for publication? Go and take a look! I also remember in the last few weeks (or is it months) that some photojournalists have been dismissed for altering their images. Think back to the days of transparencies, that's not all that long ago. I used to take almost all slides, the tolerance in exposure was about 1/2 a stop and what you got on the film was what you projected onto the screen. Certainly it was possible to crop to some extent by masking but you certainly could not clone out any bits you didn't want. If you didn't want them, you made sure they weren't there in the first place!. I think this is what Andre is talking about. I too am of the old school, you 'get it right' in the camera!. I don't agree with cloning out anything or swapping the sky for something different. However I can see no reason why those who enjoy playing with images in their computer should not continue to do so. I do think that where they do that and submit a 'doctored 'image, it should be noted as such and the original SOOC should be placed alongside so we can see what they've done. And these 'doctored' images should be judged in competitions separately from those SOOC although the minimal alterations allowed by National Geographic could be acceptable

Keith, you confine photography to a leaden literalism, reportage which is documentary, even forensic - something which brings to mind 19th Century debates about the role of painting - if any - after the invention of photography, and the parallel position taken by art critics of realist beliefs who saw in Impressionist painting only childish daubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keith201

This is a very interesting thread isn't it?
Have you seen what National Geographic have to say about post production on images submitted to them for publication?

---

Yes Keith, entry for Nat Geo Photo Contest closed on 12 July.
In some way we are all photojournalists, we all tell stories with our photographs.