Sunday, August 20, 2006

Pretty In Pink


I shot this picture a couple of weeks ago when I was taking pictures of the big red bugs, which turned out to be Boxelder Bugs in the nymph stage. (Thanks to my friend Stacy The Scientist.) This beautiful flower stood proud among the brown grass and dirt of my neighbor’s yard. It’s a handheld shot using the macro setting; I don’t like lugging the tripod around.

I am curious about the ethics of digital photography. I used the settings in iPhoto to enhance the color a bit. I adjusted the saturation and the tint in order to deepen the pink to represent the flower’s actual color. Is that ethical? Can I ethically submit the photo to the Greene County Fair next year? Is it important to note that I enhanced the colors? Is it important that I tell my readers when I enhance a photo? Surely with all these journalists and photographers in my midst, someone will be able to guide me.

3 comments:

Camera Obscura said...

I'd like to know too. Hubs says, "You're pretty good at getting a good photo."

I reply, "I'm pretty good with the editing software." I have a problem w/ mentally converting 3-D to 2-D...

Camera Obscura said...

And yeah, the painter's use of a camera obscura to check his framing in Girl with the Pearl Earring is what inspired the name of my blog.

John Stone said...

Naw I don't think it's necessary. All photos should be edited in some way or another. On 90% of mine I crop, and then adjust brightness and contrast. These are things I would normally do in the lab with film. The idea is that the product is what's important. I have seen very few photos that haven't been edited, and those should have. I do some color adjestment occasionally, but I can usually enhance the color using the contrast. I do like to use filters and I am careful of the light ... those are the real biggies. Nothing dishonest about adjusting photos ... hell, playboy has made a fortune doing it.