Rich, I like the cropped version - it's one of those images that is fun to look at flaws and all. RE "cheating" It's a complex subject especially with the ease and finesse afforded by PS. I try not to be too doctrinaire about right and wrong on a picture-by-picture basis. I think for photo illustration, which is what Doisneau mostly did, any ploy is fair. For some genre, such as street photography, I think the integrity of the photographic idea is lost and the picture is made meaningless if it is significantly altered - post exposure. There is an excellent show of portrait work in a local gallery featuring in-camera double exposures. They are beautifully done (crafted!) but I don't think anyone but experienced photographers will know that they are not PS collages. Should having this understanding give the work more merritt? I think so. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: PF Galleries on 05 FEB 05 > From: "Rich Mason" <cameratraveler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, February 09, 2005 4:11 am > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Fake? Fishy? WRONG? Cheat? Sheesh. > > No, none of the above, depending on your definition of the words. > > It is a fairly hefty crop, but, once again, no fakery, save the > conversion to black & white (also, again, mixed lighting sources as > with last week's). > The original, reduced to a smaller file but otherwise unchanged, can be > seen here: http://richmason.com/temp/ordorig.jpg > > I agree that the man in the foreground looks wrong. I suspect it's > partly because he is out of focus and the low camera position gives him > more prominence in the frame. I liked the picture for its oddness, and > I found him and his expression to be the oddest--he looks like he has a > little secret. The dark-haired woman probably looks softer than the > man with the hat due to movement blur--the shutter speed was 1/30 > second. > > If I ever decide to post a cut-and-paste job to the Gallery, I'll let > you know. > > Some street photographers do cheat. They set up scenes (Robert > Doisneau, for example). They remove content that they don't like. You > know, like some wildlife photographers (Art Wolfe, for example). > > Cheers, > Rich > > > > On Saturday, February 5, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Bob Talbot wrote: > > > Rich Mason - > > Fake? > > > > After telling us last week's brilliant image was for real ther's for > > sure something very very fishy about this one. Either that or the > > lighting / focus is playing some pretty weird tricks on my eyes. Do > > streetphoto guys cheat? Well, they don't call it cheating but > > "enhancement". > > > > The big bloke in the middle just looks WRONG. So wrong I can't really > > believe it's a fake: the lighting's all wrong on him and the scale > > looks out of true. The womam in the distant background looks sharp, > > so does the man in the hat yet the woman with the bottle - distance > > wise between the two of them - looks soft, slightly out of focus. > > > > I confess, basically I don't like the image. I'm just looking long > > and hard wondering if it's a response to one of last week's reviewers > > who suspected Rich had been cutting and pasting assorted characters > > into a scene :) > > > > > > http://richmason.com
