NATURE photographs with post-processing or none?

[Nnnnsic]

SO far I've avoided a post and this thread is really starting to bore me

I can almost see your finger twitching spasmodically above the lock button...

I can picture Dad's finger twitching over the unlock button if that happens.

[stubbsy]

SO far I've avoided a post and this thread is really starting to bore me

I can almost see your finger twitching spasmodically above the lock button...

I can picture Dad's finger twitching over the unlock button if that happens.

Me? Lock a Thread? Never

Besides, this one is too interesting to consider it seriously (plus I'm scared of Gary)

[Big V]

Is he going to answer the questions?

[gstark]

Is he going to answer the questions?

I hope so; I really think it would be tghe height of rudeness for him to continue to ignore them.

That said, we also need to respect that he might not post on the Sabbath.

[energypolice]

Thank you all for being patient with my slow response to your many questions.
I was very tired and found it very hard to keep up with your many questions over the last three days working about 6 hours a day. Thank God for the Sabbath Day rest, which helped me to recover some vital energy and reflect on the things that have been unfolding in my life these past six days.

I will try to answer all your questions to the best of my knowledge, which is very little, but pointed. Some of the questions I do not understand, because it is over my head, and it would still take more time, for me to look up the meaning of those words.
There was only one silly question, because the person asking the question, indicated that it was silly. So don’t believe that me not answering your questions, is me regarding them as silly, no not at all, and I do respect you all, because you all are God’s children.

In some of the questions that I tried to answer before, I used the wrong words, not on purpose, but because I thought that the word I used was the correct one. E.g. on the top of page 9,
I was trying to state my standard of excellence, and used the word “repenting” instead of “representing”, and since I was using the Microsoft Word software it did not indicate that I spelt the word wrong. Also the word “actuate” for the correct word “accurate”. No wonder the Senior Member was confused.

I only discovered this was a problem, after the Sabbath Day was over, and paid my 14 year old daughter 5 dollars to correct about 90 pages of the forum transcript which I printed out.

She said “Daddy you spelled cheap wrong” and I told her no way, because I used Word to write it and it did not flag me, and she said, yes because there is a word “cheep” which I had used.
My goal in life is to be 100% truthful in all I do, so I changed the word on my website from “shelf” to “drawers” because that is where I put the film cameras, and that is the truth, and hope to be like Rush Limbough, who I listen to everyday on the radio. He is 98.5% accurate in what he says, which is excellent in today’s world.

I hope to answer your questions by stating again what I believe, and why I will stick to it.

When I started photography back in the black and white photo days, I would load the film into the camera, then aim and shoot the picture. After the last picture was taken on that roll of film, it was removed from the camera and processed in the dark-room with chemicals to develop the negative. Then I would print from the negative after it was dry, onto photo paper. The finished product was called a “photograph”, and it was impossible to produce a photograph without a negative, but today with a digital personal computer you can make an image and call it a “photograph”. This should not be true if it was not made in the camera, but on a personal computer operated by a person.

The main reason why I will stick with this belief is, that a photograph made by a digital camera today, cannot be used in a court of law to prove a case, but a film camera’s image can be used if the negative or slide can be produced. I am not sure about this being a fact, because I do not know all the laws, so I could be incorrect, therefore please correct me if I am wrong.

I will say again, when a photograph is produced by a digital camera, the camera does the post-processing, and the picture is printed directly from the digital camera or transferred to a personal computer, and then it is printed without any deliberate alterations by the personal computer operator, that is when it will be deemed a TRUE photograph.

When the same process is done at the personal computer stage and any changes are made to the image deliberately, this has now become Digital Art in my opinion.

I will trust the digital camera more than some person making the final changes to record an image correctly as a photograph, if there is a RAW file available for PROOF.

Say you took a digital camera and record a Blue-faced Honeyeater, and when you put the file on the personal computer from the digital camera, the colour blue on the face of the bird did not look like what you remembered seeing with your eyes when you were recording the image. So then you decide to change it, and now it looks more like purple, but this is ok for you, since it now matches the background, and becomes a masterpiece in your estimation.

I will now conclude since I was long winded and you must be bored, and I need to spend more time shooting photographs of birds to make enough money to pay for the new expensive digital camera. I must inform you that my daughter has helped me in writing this text, and I owe her a great deal of gratitude for the wonderful tutoring.

God bless you all in everything you do, so do it well,

Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

[Nnnnsic]

She said “Daddy you spelled cheap wrong” and I told her no way, because I used Word to write it and it did not flag me, and she said, yes because there is a word “cheep” which I had used.

My goal in life is to be 100% truthful in all I do, so I changed the word on my website from “shelf” to “drawers” because that is where I put the film cameras, and that is the truth, and hope to be like Rush Limbough, who I listen to everyday on the radio.

You spelled Rush Limbaugh's name wrong.

I don't even like the guy and even I can pick that up.

He is 98.5% accurate in what he says, which is excellent in today’s world.

How did you get that figure?

[Greg B]

Actually, 93.25% of all statistics are made up.

[Nnnnsic]

Sounds approximately accurate.

[gstark]

I was very tired and found it very hard to keep up with your many questions over the last three days working about 6 hours a day.

Where does that leave those amongst us who work 10 to 14 hours daily, every day?

Some of the questions I do not understand, because it is over my head, and it would still take more time, for me to look up the meaning of those words.

That's fine. Or you could ask here; we have surprisingly intelligent bunch of people around here, who are, in the main, all here to try to help you.

But you've got to be willing to be helped, and you need to maintain an open mind.

And you need to remember that you have two ears but only one mouth. Thus you should be listening more, and perhaps consider the points of view that are on offer from those who may have a tad more knowledge than you.

My goal in life is to be 100% truthful in all I do, so I changed the word on my website from “shelf” to “drawers” because that is where I put the film cameras, and that is the truth, and hope to be like Rush Limbough, who I listen to everyday on the radio. He is 98.5% accurate in what he says, which is excellent in today’s world.

Not a really good start in being 100% truthful, I'm afraid. As has been pointed out, you've mis-spelled his name.

And from where did that 98.5% come? My understanding is that he's closer to about 12%, but of course he's only mostly stating his opinion, which may be neither correct, nor incorrect, but may eiher agree with, or differ from, any opinion that any other person might hold.

So I seriously question that any percentage on this is of any real value.

I hope to answer your questions by stating again what I believe, and why I will stick to it.

I look forward to reading your answers. I note though that none at all are proferred in this response.

When I started photography back in the black and white photo days, I would load the film into the camera, then aim and shoot the picture. After the last picture was taken on that roll of film, it was removed from the camera and processed in the dark-room with chemicals to develop the negative. Then I would print from the negative after it was dry, onto photo paper. The finished product was called a “photograph”, and it was impossible to produce a photograph without a negative,

So much for your 100% truthfulness then.

I can recall a prcess called Cibachrome, which I've only used some hundereds of times, that permitted me to make colour prints directly from slides.

No negatives were introduced into that process.

And yes, they most certainly were photographs. You might care to look here, here or here for some more information on this.

but today with a digital personal computer you can make an image and call it a “photograph”. This should not be true if it was not made in the camera, but on a personal computer operated by a person.

But an image that has been made in a camera is still made in that camera, regardless of whether or not it's had any PP applied. And that's true of both film and digital, I'm afraid.

And in a darkroom, one can apply dodging and burning (and many other techniques) to an image before processing the final print. Are those images, derived from film, no longer photographs?

The main reason why I will stick with this belief is, that a photograph made by a digital camera today, cannot be used in a court of law to prove a case,

Oops. That 100% is really slipping badly now.

Nikon actually produce an enforcement kit that permits digital images made with their digital cameras to be used by enforcement agencies in courts of law. While I don't know if Canon produce something similar, my expectation is that because this is such a significant market for them, they will probably have something similar.

but a film camera’s image can be used if the negative or slide can be produced. I am not sure about this being a fact, because I do not know all the laws, so I could be incorrect, therefore please correct me if I am wrong.

Consider yourself so corrected.

Perhaps you might do well to just stick with those subjects about which you may be knowledgable, and then perhaps you should be also prepared to take on board the comments of those who might be more knowledgable in those area's where you could, if you listen, learn something?

I will say again, when a photograph is produced by a digital camera, the camera does the post-processing, and the picture is printed directly from the digital camera or transferred to a personal computer, and then it is printed without any deliberate alterations by the personal computer operator, that is when it will be deemed a TRUE photograph.

So, what if I can show you two images of the exact same subject, taken at about the same time, under the same lighting conditions, but where they each look toitally different? No post processing on the computer save for resizing for the web.

Which of those would you say was the TRUE photograph? Surely, one must not be if the other one is?

When the same process is done at the personal computer stage and any changes are made to the image deliberately, this has now become Digital Art in my opinion.

And you're welcome to your opinion. I'm glad it's just an opinion, because were it anything else, it would probably be considered to be wrong.

[Zeeke]

The main reason why I will stick with this belief is, that a photograph made by a digital camera today, cannot be used in a court of law to prove a case, but a film camera’s image can be used if the negative or slide can be produced. I am not sure about this being a fact, because I do not know all the laws, so I could be incorrect, therefore please correct me if I am wrong.

I quite often watch American crime shows.. (I always wanted to join the police force, but i dont have the neccessary fitness and schooling ) And I quite often see them using Digital cameras to take photos of crime scene evidence... even the American version of the RSPCA uses Digital Point and Shoot cameras to take photos of animals that suffer cruelty abuse.. .. so submitting digital images as evidence looks to be quite legal..

Tim

[Big V]

What about the grade of paper you select to print the image on when working in the darkroom? Using grade 1 gives a far different effect than grade 5..indeed even the chemicals you select can give varied effects. I get what you are trying so hard to say but it is simply not valid and at no stage have you indicated to us that you understand about colour matching your monitor, printer and camera.. There are still many questions to be answered and I really am now starting to wonder what would the point be of you accepting the camera's settings and trusting them as "gospel" if you have not calibrated!

[Greg B]

If there was a law against massive pointless wastes of time, we'd be looking at doing hard time over this thread.

[stubbsy]

Speaking of pointless, at this rate energypolice will hit the 50 posts mark that forms part of the Senior Member requirements, just in this one thread.

[phillipb]

I'm afraid I've come to the end of the line with this discussion.
I think it's all about blind faith. Just like you have radical believers in religion, you have radical photographers and no matter how much evidence you place in front of their eyes, they still refuse to believe, so I'm going to stop watching this thread now. Good luck to the rest of you trying to get through.

[DaveB]

Nikon actually produce an enforcement kit that permits digital images made with their digital cameras to be used by enforcement agencies in courts of law. While I don't know if Canon produce something similar, my expectation is that because this is such a significant market for them, they will probably have something similar.

The Canon DVK-E2 verification kit has been available since early 2004. The 20D, 30D, 5D, and I think all of the 1Ds, 1Ds MkII, 1D MkII, and 1D MkII N cameras have a custom function to enable saving of the appropriate digital signature in the image file.

[kipper]

Guess they'd have to have some form of digital signature to gaurantee the image was unaltered.

[Greg B]

Speaking of pointless, at this rate energypolice will hit the 50 posts mark that forms part of the Senior Member requirements, just in this one thread.

Ah yes Stubbsy, but don't forget this important point......

Remember, however, that because this section requires membership to be approved, administrators and moderators may look over your posting history to decide if you've earned the right to access that section.

[kipper]

This thread is starting to become like that humourous (might be offensive to some) image that did the email rounds at one stage about arguing on the internet and how it's like running in the special olympics

[the foto fanatic]

Yawn! Unfortunately I posted in this thread a while ago, so I have kept tabs on it.
I'm beginning to wish I hadn't.
I think that, despite the attempts to explain PP, and how it occured before the days of digital cameras, we have a member who has absolutely no interest in the merits of the discussion. He is fixated on his own view of NATURE photography and appears to be unlikely to recognise any counter viewpoint. (Or, he could be a troll, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ATM). I guess I should admire his determination.

Going back to my days of competing in camera clubs, there was indeed a strict definition of "Nature Photography", which did not allow for anything man-made to appear in the image (eg a zoo fence, or a food bowl). However, cropping was allowed, dodging and burning could also occur and the use of filters or different film emulsions to achieve different effects were also allowed if I recall correctly.

Anyway, a discussion where those involved are willing to learn or at least listen objectively is one thing.

This appears, to me at least, to be something completely different.

[gstark]

Nikon actually produce an enforcement kit that permits digital images made with their digital cameras to be used by enforcement agencies in courts of law. While I don't know if Canon produce something similar, my expectation is that because this is such a significant market for them, they will probably have something similar.

The Canon DVK-E2 verification kit has been available since early 2004. The 20D, 30D, 5D, and I think all of the 1Ds, 1Ds MkII, 1D MkII, and 1D MkII N cameras have a custom function to enable saving of the appropriate digital signature in the image file.

Dave,

I thought that there would be something like this. Thanx for the confirmation.

[gstark]

Trevor,

Yawn! Unfortunately I posted in this thread a while ago, so I have kept tabs on it.
I'm beginning to wish I hadn't.
I think that, despite the attempts to explain PP, and how it occured before the days of digital cameras, we have a member who has absolutely no interest in the merits of the discussion. He is fixated on his own view of NATURE photography

Despite the fact that he is shooting in that oh-so-natural a location, a zoo ...

and appears to be unlikely to recognise any counter viewpoint. (Or, he could be a troll, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ATM). I guess I should admire his determination.

I'm quickly forming the opinion the Michael is a troll. Although in his most recent post he undertook to answer the questions asked of him, that posting contained no semblance of any such answers, nor has he, in the many hours that have transpired since his last potsing, attempted to post any further responses to those questions.

And in keeping with the tradtions of a troll, he has steadfastly not engaged i any other discussion within this community. It's really (and sadly) starting to look to me as if his sole purpose here was to try to stir up trouble by posting a loaded question, and then failing to answer any and all objections to his methodoligeis.

My gut feeling is that I give him the benefit of a further 12 or so hours to recitify the situation, but should he not take serious steps at such rectiification, I'll probably close this thread, and ban hom from further posting.

Anyway, a discussion where those involved are willing to learn or at least listen objectively is one thing.

This appears, to me at least, to be something completely different.

That's what I'm beginning to feel as well. I really don't like to ban people, but I like trolls even less.

[DaveB]

I must say, despite the lack of clear responses from Michael it has been interesting to read everyone else's opinions!

[Nnnnsic]

That's what I'm beginning to feel as well. I really don't like to ban people, but I like trolls even less.

Let me just state that I absolutely do not agree that a ban is warranted here.

Michael may not provide answers for a thread he started and may or may not have a clue what he's doing, but I do not feel that we have the right to ban someone just because they follow a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude or refuse to answer their own consequences.

[Glen]

Nnnnsic, how about just closing the thread on the basis of tediousness

[Nnnnsic]

Nnnnsic, how about just closing the thread on the basis of tediousness

If the next answer isn't explaining of anything, I'll let Stubbsy wield his Lethal Longsword of Locks!

[Glen]

[ozczecho]

Gee, Im glad I pulled the plug on this thread on pg3...Its page 12 now...WOW

[johndec]

I'm still waiting for answers to a couple of very simple questions I asked on page 2

[gstark]

That's what I'm beginning to feel as well. I really don't like to ban people, but I like trolls even less.

Let me just state that I absolutely do not agree that a ban is warranted here.

Michael may not provide answers for a thread he started and may or may not have a clue what he's doing, but I do not feel that we have the right to ban someone just because they follow a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude or refuse to answer their own consequences.

Actually, it's our forum, and we have the right to do as we please.

But that's not why I would be banning him, if it came to that.

I would be banning him on the basis of him being a troll - starting a contentious discussion but refusing to discuss his points in an open and honest manner, and failing to otherwise join in the community here. How many other members can you point to who have made 30 or so posts, all of which were entriely focussed upon and within just the one thread?

Our attitude - my attitude - is that we encourage and support our members and that we create and foster a strong and vibrant community. A troll would be somebody who is posting counter to those goals, or else is otherwise failing to support them.

Within that context, I don't believe that Michael's posts are supportive of our community, and thus he's very close, IMHO, to being, if not banned, then at least suspended for at least the period between abd including two Sabbaths.

[gstark]

I'm still waiting for answers to a couple of very simple questions I asked on page 2

Exactly my point, John.

[phillipb]

I'm afraid I've come to the end of the line with this discussion.
I think it's all about blind faith. Just like you have radical believers in religion, you have radical photographers and no matter how much evidence you place in front of their eyes, they still refuse to believe, so I'm going to stop watching this thread now. Good luck to the rest of you trying to get through.

Ok I lied, I couldn't resist seeing what was going on in this thread

I agree with Leigh, no need for a ban, just lock the thread and if Michael starts up another troll type discussion then ban otherwise I really don't see any damage done.
For the most part this has been a civilised discussion without any name calling or personal attacks.

[dooda]

I think we've all been tuning in at the possibility that he'd come up with a response to our questions.

At this point our questions are quite numerous, and he really hasn't even begun to answer them. His stubborn behavior isn't that abnormal. Generally when people stick to a side, they're going to stay there no matter what. Life is not a logical thing, it's emotional, and people generally stick to their guns.

I'd have to say that I agree with nnnnsic here. Banning seems a little bit rash. He posted the topic, but in no way has his lack of answering questions been contentious...maybe inept, but not contentious. He obviously started it up without the intention to learn anything, but to try and convince others of his belief (much as we're trying to convince him). He's not doing a terribly good job at it, but I don't see that as terribly destructive or troll-like. Obviously admins can do what they want, but it would put a sour taste in my mouth. If you close the thread and he continues to engage in contention, then ban, otherwise I think that banning is a little much.

[energypolice]

The response to my last post drew too many questions and I am far behind in answering your many questions.
I told my daughter this morning about you all wanting me to answer the many questions, and she said that I should answer them.
So I am going to try and answer all the questions posted before the Sabbath Day, but first I must tell you my mission.

My mission is to have a viewer adviser label on all photographs for sale on the Internet, stating to what degree they had personal enhancements applied to them, similar to the movie and TV advisory. Where PG13 and G and so on indicates what to expect about the movie. The photographer would state NPP for no post-processing, SPP for some post processing, like Auto Enhance or small changes, and MPP manipulation post processing, such as cloning out branches and adding other things.

I would like all current pro photographers who sell their work on the Internet and locally to vote by yes, or no, for wanting some kind of viewer advisory.
Please be honest and only pro photographers should vote.
I would like to vote yes for Stan Osolanski, since at this time I think he does not own a personal computer, and his work had being on cover of magazines.

The time on the computer goes by very fast, and I will start answering the questions later, since I must go now.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

[gstark]

Michael,

I told my daughter this morning about you all wanting me to answer the many questions, and she said that I should answer them.

How nice that you have your daughter's permission to do this.

So I am going to try and answer all the questions posted before the Sabbath Day, but first I must tell you my mission.

My mission is to have a viewer adviser label on all photographs for sale on the Internet, stating to what degree they had personal enhancements applied to them, similar to the movie and TV advisory. Where PG13 and G and so on indicates what to expect about the movie.

With all due respect, what a load of rubbish.

Do you really believe that the imposition of advisories help?

Do you think that viewers of TV shows and movies are so stupid that they are unable to determine for themselves what they should or shouldn't watch?

Let me make this point abundantly clear: I believe that imposed censorship is evil and disrespectful. As adults, we should be free to choose and watch what we want, when we want.

And when it comes to our kids, we should be talking with and guiding our kids' viewing choices, but not making those choices for them. If we're making their choices, how do you belive that they will grow into mature adults, able to make their own decisions?

Advisories should be exactly that: advisories. And nothing else.

All of that is apart from the fact that what you're suggesting is totally and completely unenforceable, as well as being a complete and utter nonsense.

If the so-called authorities can't even stop spam, how in the world do you expect what you're suggesting to be enforced?

And finally, you state that this is your "mission".

Let make this point very bloody clear to you: this forum is not a forum for you to embark upon your "mission".

Any further posts from you that make any such mention of your "mission" will be deleted or edited, and further action against you will be considered.

If you wish to answer the questions asked of you, please do so. Please also feel free to wander into other threads on this forum, and become an active and valuable member of this community.

But do not even think about trying to peddle your "mission" here, because that sort of evangelical pursuit is unwelcome and unacceptable.

The photographer would state NPP for no post-processing, SPP for some post processing, like Auto Enhance or small changes, and MPP manipulation post processing, such as cloning out branches and adding other things.

Clearly, you haven't even bothered to look at images in our forums. Wherever appropriate, most photographers here already freely provide details of whatever PP they're applied to the images, so your advisories are completely unneccessary.

I would like all current pro photographers who sell their work on the Internet and locally to vote by yes, or no, for wanting some kind of viewer advisory.
Please be honest and only pro photographers should vote.
I would like to vote yes for Stan Osolanski, since at this time I think he does not own a personal computer, and his work had being on cover of magazines.

And you carry what, precisely, authority to cast a vote on behalf another individual?

Again, no voting on anything relating to this sort of topic, by anyone, and again, no further discussion whatsoever on this forum of your "mission".

[dooda]

Your name is taking on new meaning to me Energypolice.

I'd like to sum up my main questions, as they're probably buried in the pages of the forum, if indeed you plan on answering them.

1. Do you believe more in the process of the work than the actual work itself? If not, then why let the process dictate the outcome? Why place so much emphasis on the process?

2. Being that Ansel Adams worked extensively in the dark room burning and dodging (much the same thing done in Photoshop), would you refer to his work as photography? If not, then what do you call it? How do we differentiate it from a photo which has been treated the same way in Photoshop, but now call "digital art"?

3. I really am curious about you thinking that -God- is more lenient on a 5k camera, and less so on our own abilities to represent, but I understand you not answering this question, and there are many on here who don't want this to turn into a theoretical discussion on such matters, so I understand if you don't want to answer it quickly.

I'm deriving a strange sense of entertainment from this thread, and so will continue to follow it until it dies. I'd love to leave it alone, but I'm just too weak.

[wally]

My mission is to have a viewer adviser label on all photographs for sale on the Internet, stating to what degree they had personal enhancements applied to them,
Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

EP, yous and i gots the sames missons, i wants all girls in bars ands clubs to have warnin labbells ifs theys got ennhansements. lots and lots got ennhansements and theys dont tell yous

yours rite about the snaps on the net all thems modells have ennhansements too. theys should tells us

yous and i shoulds hav drinks one nite, seeings we's have the sames misson

[stubbsy]

My mission is to have a viewer adviser label on all photographs for sale on the Internet, stating to what degree they had personal enhancements applied to them, similar to the movie and TV advisory. Where PG13 and G and so on indicates what to expect about the movie. The photographer would state NPP for no post-processing, SPP for some post processing, like Auto Enhance or small changes, and MPP manipulation post processing, such as cloning out branches and adding other things.

FFS

What planet are you from? At first I thought that your ideas were kinda quaint, but now you want to ram them down my throat too. How's about you give up religion in return. I'd say there's an equal chance of both outcomes.

Here endeth my bandwidth consumption in this thread.

[Nnnnsic]

Another Wally post, another English teacher weeps.

...but first I must tell you my mission.

No, no! Wait! I must tell you mine... for I am the son of God (which is kind of jarring being an Athiest) and I have a mission myself for all others to adhere to.

Yes, I have returned, and like I deemed in that stupid book you all keep misquoting me in, I feel it is every person's right who picks up a camera to take a picture the way they want to.

I see enhancements all the time when I look through the Church Illustrated Swimsuit Editions that grace my door step every year, what with beautiful women with extra large bibles tucked under their gowns, and even this year some hot little Christian number managed to dress up like a priest and make that white collar look sexier than I'd ever seen before!

Regardless, it's not our place to determine a level of standards we can apply, nor is it our right to say what work be done to a photo if we don't deem it to be true, for it is only logical for us to argue that because a photo is taken by someone and because it is their work, they can do whatever they want with it.

And because I believe this to be the case so should you as I am the son of God.

Okay!

You've heard my mission!

I'm excited, much like the deceased fat man from many an Australian laundry commercial.

Let's hear your mission...

My mission is to have a viewer adviser label on all photographs for sale on the Internet, stating to what degree they had personal enhancements applied to them

Are you insane?

You can't be serious.

What makes you think that that's your right?

I mean it's my right, not yours.

You can't even provide answers to what these intelligent people have requested from your original topic and yet you insert your mission here, especially when it is the exact opposite of mine?

That's just not right.

Why not go to an NRA convention and preach about guns are bad because the bulk of the people that buy them and use them are idiots.

Good God (ME! I enjoy speaking about myself), do something else with your time.

Like go out and take pictures with your post-processed digital camera instead of thinking up cockamaney schemes for systems which have no reason to exist.

I would like all current pro photographers who sell their work on the Internet and locally to vote by yes, or no, for wanting some kind of viewer advisory.

Well, I won't even acknowledge this with a vote, because it's so pointless that you've deemed yourself worthy of a "mission" that I feel like I need an extra cup of tea now.

I only ever have one a day, but now you've done it. Two. That's a first for the Son of God. Two cups of tea. I hope you're happy.

Please be honest and only pro photographers should vote.

Are you a Pro-Photographer? You certainly don't seem like one.

Certainly, you should have to be a Pro-Pro-Photographer to be able to come up with a scheme like that which requests Pro-Photographers to vote, and nothing in your conversational skills or even photographic range suggests to me you're a "pro-photographer" if you can't understand some of the basic technological principles behind this.

The time on the computer goes by very fast, and I will start answering the questions later, since I must go now.

Well, as the Son of God (it has a nice ring to it, doesn't it) I can surely tell you that time goes forth as I and the rest of Earth's scientists see fit. You see, we came to an understanding that the writers of that book of quotes from me didn't see fit to put in there so there could always be a way to make those who read it faithfully stand out. Personally, I think things like that have just made it worse for us.

Regardless, time doesn't go by very fast on a computer.

In fact, it chuggs forth at the same old speed without any little care for you or I... well... maybe I, but not you or them.

If you do find that time goes by particularly fast on a computer, it's possible that you're actually quite slow.

However, as a test, if you started reading this exact post four hours ago and you're still having troubles with it, why not pack it in for the night, forget your mission nonsense (as I will deem) and go have a nice cup of tea. I'd encourage that to get rid of most of people's problems, but they always want a nice complicated answer because they often like to think of their lives as overly complicated when they're especially simple.

So stop this mission nonsense and have a cup of tea already!

[Big V]

EP, Luckily we still live in a democratic society where freedom of thought is encouraged, so I am not going to gun you for your ideas or values. Your wish to see that sort of information is entirely up to you but lets look at some of the hard truths here. Why would most people even bother with this? Who actually cares anymore? Nearly every picture we see in the masses of magazines and other publications has the images altered. Even the time photographers and national geographic photographers have admited to PP their work. No one is there when you take the photo, no one can validate the photo - so how will this help? you are relying on honesty here and that has been shown by the advertising crowd to be almost non-existent.
Accept the reality of the world we live in...nothing is ever as it seems when it comes to publications..
Do you really wanted to stifle creativity? That is what you are proposing!!!

[phillipb]

My mission is to have a viewer adviser label on all photographs for sale on the Internet, stating to what degree they had personal enhancements applied to them,
Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

EP, yous and i gots the sames missons, i wants all girls in bars ands clubs to have warnin labbells ifs theys got ennhansements. lots and lots got ennhansements and theys dont tell yous

yours rite about the snaps on the net all thems modells have ennhansements too. theys should tells us

yous and i shoulds hav drinks one nite, seeings we's have the sames misson

Perfect way to answer in this thread, no need to take this too seriously anymore.

ps. Dooda and others, could you please stop asking Michael anymore questions, at this rate he will have homework for the next two years

[DaveB]

After reading wally's post, for some reason I imagined the sound of a rim-shot...

"Next!"

[CraigVTR]

My mission today was to have a good laugh. Revisiting this thread today has done the job.

Craig

[Big V]

If you look at his mandril shot full size it is blurred...I do not think a pro would post a shot such as this

[energypolice]

Hi Andre’,

Thank you for this information, it is enlighten about what is considered nature photography, and I have removed the word “nature” from my website.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

Michael, That's very commendable.
Does that mean that you will also allow yourself the removal of blemishes as stated in the same article?

Hi Phillip,

I will remove blemishes as stated in the same article, and state that post-processing was done.

[energypolice]

While I think it's very noble of you to not wanting to do any post processing on your images, I think there is times where it's a very important process of getting the most of your images. For instance it's a well known fact that the dynamic range of cameras is a lot smaller compared to that of the human eye. When you're out photographing birds in flight you will notice that your eye can visually see or the detail in the underside of a bird even when it's flying with the sun behind it. Yet when you photograph the bird will be correctly exposed and the background high key. Or for instance in perfect light you might be shooting a bird that has a combination of black feathers and white (eg. black winged stilts or other variety of stilts). These colors/tones are on either end of the spectrum and you might perfectly expose the whites but there seems to be no detail in the blacks. Using the shadow/highlight tool one can bring out the shadow detail and reproduce more accurately what the eye actually saw. It's the same with landscape photography. I know when shooting into the sun at sunset you'll have the sunset perfectly exposed and all these dark ground areas. However when I was there I could perfectly make out all the detail in the grass/dirt/water etc. So should we not post process multiple exposure images to get more dynamic range as to what the eye can see?

Hi Darryl,

I am sorry it tool me so long to reply to this question. You should do what you think is best to improve the image, and then let the viewer know.

Michael P Stewart http://www.alphapulse.com

[energypolice]

Using the flash is altering the lighting on the subject, but would not call that manipulating but adjustment, if the flash has no colour added.

What about adding a flash behind the subject to illuminate - or overilluminate - the background?

Adding a rimlight or hairlight?

Using light - or maybe makeup - to hide or exaggerate features or blemishes?

What about using a ringlight?

Or perhaps a softbox to emulate a northlight?

Maybe shine the light through some baffles to emulate and create shadows similar to those thrown by a window frame?

Or jail bars?


Which of these would you call adjustments, and which manipulations?

And in each case, why?

And why does one differ, in your mind, from any and each of the others?

Darryl,

I believe any more than the flash on the camera would be manipulations.

Michael

[kipper]

Michael it was Gary who wrote the last question that you responded to.

[kipper]

What about multiple flash setups?

[DaveB]

Let's see....

Pop-up flash: OK.
On-camera flash: OK.
On-camera flash with diffuser?
On-camera flash with fresnel extender?
Flash on a bracket to raise it away from the lens and avoid "red-eye"?
Wireless multi-flash setup?

At what point does your opinion of it change?

What is important is how we use the tools of our craft [ ... ] rather than which tools we use.

[johndec]

This is getting beyond silly. We all know that there is going to be one stock response to every question so therefore I humbly suggest that there is a time and place for everything to die and now is the time...