On 2014-03-10 23:26, klausknuthmail@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > You singled out a quite specialized field of photography where Photoshop fixes don’t matter or - as Randy put it - “they get you fired”. So what is the relevance to the overall picture? Photojournalism as a whole is a BIG field; if the statement doesn't apply to that entire field, then it doesn't appply to "digital photographers by and large". > The two statements still stand tall: > > 1. Almost everything we are looking today (= still photography) has been Photoshopped. For very small values of "everything". Advertising photos tend to have been. Olympic photographers for example were required to turn in their take within 14 minutes of the end of the event; they certainly weren't spending much time on post-processing! And, as has been said, getting caught at it gets you fired in photojournalism. A few cases make the news, but that's perhaps partly because they're *rare*. > 2. S&%$ in - S&%$ out (never mind #1). Old computer slogan, and not requiring euphemisms -- GIGO, "Garbage in, garbage out". Of course, the definition of garbage or the identification of some set of images as garbage is somewhat subjective. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info Nikon DSLR photo list: http://d4scussion.com
