On 2014-03-11 08:50, Klaus Knuth wrote: > Just to specify what we are talking about: I used the term ‘photoshopped’ with ‘digitally enhanced or altered’ and #2 to mean that if you start with crap - digital enhancement won’t matter much. I've certainly told myself that I've spent too much time turning bad photos into mediocre photos -- not ever actually expecting to make them "good", but trying to get some level of restoration on snapshots that mean something to me personally. And even with that view, I want it for me personally, I *still* feel like I often spend more time and energy than the result justifies. On the other hand it's good practice. > Traditional photojournalism and its ethics appear to be declining quickly as we speak, but there are others on this list better qualified to take a guess at the percentage of the market, unaltered pictures (= still allowed to be adjusted for exposure, sharpness and cropped etc.) account for these days. It's certainly an "exciting", or perhaps "interesting", time for them. And for most kinds of professional photographers, and also writers and musicians; many of the creative professions in fact. -- 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
