Re: Computer Enhanced Photos

[P3D Ronald J Beck 840196 <rbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > There's also the question of computer enhanced photos.  A good 
> example is  the Time Magazine's issue when O.J. Simpson's picture 
> appeared.  The photo  had been "enhanced" to give his face some 
> shadowing and made it a bit more  sinister.  So, the "artist" took an 
> image and enhanced it to solicit an  emotional response.  Is this a 
> good thing?  A bad thing?

> How's that significantly different from taking a picture with 
> lighting that  provides that same or some similar sinister shadow 
> effect?  Say, with  appropriately placed flash lighting by an 
> assistant? 

That's exactly my point!  How is it different?  And why should it be 
handled differently in a competition?  I've read people's comments 
regarding high-end computing capabilities & such and how that "changes 
everything".  However, nobody's mentioned how a photographer can also make 
a lot of changes and/or enhancements in his/her own darkroom.  But, not 
everybody has a darkroom!  Well, does that mean that competitions are then 
divided by who has a darkroom and who doesn't?

It just seems that computer enhanced imaging is an extension of the 
photographer's capabilites.  Not everyone has it just as not everyone has 
a darkroom.

Ron


------------------------------