UKC

I set this pic of mine as my desktop on a work PC
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/719218451/

I thought it looked odd, centred on the screen, especially as Sarah's arm is cut off by the right edge of the frame.

So I wanted to shift it to the right, and set the remainder of the desktop to black. But Windows 2000 wouldn't let me do this - I had to create a new canvas and paste the picture into it. Effectively I "faked" a photograph...but somehow (aside from PC desktop aesthetics) I thought it worked better - kind of gave those eyes a blank middle-distance to non-focus on.

And it got me wondering.

Plenty of discussion about dropping in, or cloning out, various features in images. Here I just added darkness (which is what would have been there, had I shot wider).

Is what I did less unethical than the aforementioned photo manipulation topics?

In reply to Blue Straggler: windows 2000???

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Who knows?
I've just recently learnt that serious photography involves more than pressing a button when you see a nice thing.
Next they'll be telling me where babies come from.

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie:



no,you're not ready for that yet.

to op-can you not just edit the photo or centre it?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

first thing I see is the eyes which traditionally is good for portraits also the line of the stick thing which I cant remember what its called at the moment leads nicely up to the eyes so works for me as an interesting portrait.

In reply to Wee Davie:
Pressing the button when you see a nice thing is the way forward mate.

Babies come from the Alpkit Phud.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

If you put on an exhibition of work that you edited then its only you that knows the context and image selection of the work therefore does it matter? we just have what you put before us.

In reply to Blue Straggler: Who cares?

Sorry but philosophising about cloning in black and its ethical statement is incredibly introverted, and really a complete waste of time. This reminds me of John Cage and 4:33, you'll probably be right into that.

Please, if the urge strikes again, go and repeatedly type the alphabet into Word rather than posting rubbish like this!

In reply to Dr Avid:

No you're not!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Oh come on kiddo, you cannot set a portrait picture as a desktop on a computer unless you have a swivel screen and post it sideways.

If you really want it, repeat it across the screen three times to fill the screen or add another two pictures in similar vein.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

You worry too much.

<And welcome to the dark side.>

In reply to ChrisJD:

Don't he though?
It's not like he had a tree growing out of the top of someone's head or their face obscured by a bush.


uh......he didn't, did he?
now i gotta go look brb


j/k blue. heh.

In reply to Blue Straggler: I like it, the flesh tones on the left arm detract slightly. How about burning in slightly to add a bit of shadow. or possible crop even tighter.

I have no issues with manipulating 'art' photos, it's always been done, Photo journalism is a different proposition, but even that can be changed, by using a different angle to emphasize the vulnerability of a subject for example.

Steve D

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm sure you know that it's perfectly normal to edit photos for display. All you've done is crop the image to a size larger than the original.

Yes, it's preferable to do as much in camera as you can, but it's for practical reasons rather than stylistic ones.

Professionals will always take a shot with the end use in mind, and will very often take a wider shot than needed to allow for crop and bleed, for example. Making sure that the originals are as usable as possible as well as good quality is job one!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Oh and if it was my shot I'd recrop it to place the eyes just up and right of center and burn back the arm as previously suggested to make it punchier.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Another excuse to say "please please, look at my pictures".
You're as bad as that samorangehouse free publicity machine.

In reply to blueshound:

Nice pictures though - it's a pleasure to look at them, don't you agree?

In reply to niggle:

Some of them are well shot, if that's what you mean.
The subject matter, however, is a bit of a niche market.

In reply to blueshound:

That is bollocks and you know it.

How often do I put up direct links to my pictures, fishing for compliments?

Never. That's how often.

I on occasion put one up as an example, for the convenience of explaining a point or clarifying a question (as I've done here)

In reply to Blue Straggler:



In my opinion I don't think you faked anything at all. I'm of the opinion that, in order to create a Desktop Background, you have used graphic designer skills to achieve what most probably is an effective desktop where your icons stand out in a functional way while at the same time keeping the whole essence of the subject matter.

On an artistic level, what is wrong with creating a new canvas and making an aesthetically pleasing image with added dead space?

However if it wasn't an artistic decision to create a landscape composition and you were portraying a documented moment of an artist fiddling away then you are a very naughty boy.

In reply to Blue Straggler: you've chopped her fingers off!

In reply to Anonymous:

Aye and her hips and legs!

Butcher Straggler, that's me.

The picture as you see it, is an uncropped scan from a 35mm neg.
I think it's uncropped anyway - I had Peak Imaging process and scan.....might check the neg...

In reply to Blue Straggler:




There's a bit more finger on the bowing hand on the neg, but still truncated.

To all those that commented on burning-in the arm - yes I had problems deciding what to do with the arm, and I am still not happy.
By burning-in you mean for me to make it brighter, yes?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

From what it seems to me that you are saying you did, all you are doing is adding a frame, it's just that the frame is the same colour as the background of the photo, and the picture isn't centred in it.

So presumably the photo (desktop background) is twice as wide as it was originally, and all the left side is black ?

In reply to Dominion:

That's one way of putting it, yes.

And I was semi-trolling / baiting, just a bit...though the question is, I think, pertinent beyond this example. To suggest dead space where there was none, in a pseudo-photojournalistic context, would be bad, no? Picture a frame-filling image of an agitator with a megaphone, at Speakers' Corner, where uninterested people had been milling around close by and would have been in frame....then you do what I just did - you are implying that he/she had been in a larger arena, perhaps?

Sorry am rambling after a day of domestic chores !

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think that then comes down to whether you were using the image to put some point across, and were therefore using as fake evidence to make a point...

That is clearly unethical, as it is effectively deceitful, false, and not a true representation of what was going on.

So it all depends on context.