Comments on: March 2009 Wallpaper http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:31:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Dennis http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-718 Dennis Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:58:28 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-718 We will pay $50 extra for the print with #1 on it and signed by the photographer We will pay $50 extra for the print with #1 on it and signed by the
photographer

]]> By: Dennis http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-6305 Dennis Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:58:00 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-6305 We will pay $50 extra for the print with #1 on it and signed by the photographer We will pay $50 extra for the print with #1 on it and signed by the
photographer

]]> By: Dennis http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-4964 Dennis Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:58:00 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-4964 We will pay $50 extra for the print with #1 on it and signed by the photographer We will pay $50 extra for the print with #1 on it and signed by the
photographer

]]> By: Dave T http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-717 Dave T Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:30:24 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-717 The issue of 'manipulation' is open to so many interpretations - and it can be a real issue for debate. And, although the term integrity can also be debated, I think that's what your saying. Your final image, although processed, still retains its original integrity. If there was a discarded cigarette end floating, but static, in the water(out of reach for you to remove at the time of taking it)you then have the dilemma of whether to remove it, or not, during post processing. In my book, in this instance your creating a piece of fine art; you are portryaing a scene of beauty. It's going to reduce market value with that cigarette end in it. If, on the other hand, your fundamental approach is to show everything as it actually is, for example a documentary piece, and the end user is buying the piece because they know that's your work ethic. Then removing the cigarette end would mean changing the integrity of the photo. DT The issue of ‘manipulation’ is open to so many interpretations – and it can be a real issue for debate. And, although the term integrity can also be debated, I think that’s what your saying. Your final image, although processed, still retains its original integrity.

If there was a discarded cigarette end floating, but static, in the water(out of reach for you to remove at the time of taking it)you then have the dilemma of whether to remove it, or not, during post processing.

In my book, in this instance your creating a piece of fine art; you are portryaing a scene of beauty. It’s going to reduce market value with that cigarette end in it. If, on the other hand, your fundamental approach is to show everything as it actually is, for example a documentary piece, and the end user is buying the piece because they know that’s your work ethic. Then removing the cigarette end would mean changing the integrity of the photo.

DT

]]> By: Dave T http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-6304 Dave T Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:30:00 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-6304 The issue of 'manipulation' is open to so many interpretations - and it can be a real issue for debate. And, although the term integrity can also be debated, I think that's what your saying. Your final image, although processed, still retains its original integrity. If there was a discarded cigarette end floating, but static, in the water(out of reach for you to remove at the time of taking it)you then have the dilemma of whether to remove it, or not, during post processing. In my book, in this instance your creating a piece of fine art; you are portryaing a scene of beauty. It's going to reduce market value with that cigarette end in it. If, on the other hand, your fundamental approach is to show everything as it actually is, for example a documentary piece, and the end user is buying the piece because they know that's your work ethic. Then removing the cigarette end would mean changing the integrity of the photo. DT The issue of ‘manipulation’ is open to so many interpretations – and it can be a real issue for debate. And, although the term integrity can also be debated, I think that’s what your saying. Your final image, although processed, still retains its original integrity.

If there was a discarded cigarette end floating, but static, in the water(out of reach for you to remove at the time of taking it)you then have the dilemma of whether to remove it, or not, during post processing.

In my book, in this instance your creating a piece of fine art; you are portryaing a scene of beauty. It’s going to reduce market value with that cigarette end in it. If, on the other hand, your fundamental approach is to show everything as it actually is, for example a documentary piece, and the end user is buying the piece because they know that’s your work ethic. Then removing the cigarette end would mean changing the integrity of the photo.

DT

]]> By: Dave T http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-4963 Dave T Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:30:00 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-4963 The issue of 'manipulation' is open to so many interpretations - and it can be a real issue for debate. And, although the term integrity can also be debated, I think that's what your saying. Your final image, although processed, still retains its original integrity. If there was a discarded cigarette end floating, but static, in the water(out of reach for you to remove at the time of taking it)you then have the dilemma of whether to remove it, or not, during post processing. In my book, in this instance your creating a piece of fine art; you are portryaing a scene of beauty. It's going to reduce market value with that cigarette end in it. If, on the other hand, your fundamental approach is to show everything as it actually is, for example a documentary piece, and the end user is buying the piece because they know that's your work ethic. Then removing the cigarette end would mean changing the integrity of the photo. DT The issue of ‘manipulation’ is open to so many interpretations – and it can be a real issue for debate. And, although the term integrity can also be debated, I think that’s what your saying. Your final image, although processed, still retains its original integrity.

If there was a discarded cigarette end floating, but static, in the water(out of reach for you to remove at the time of taking it)you then have the dilemma of whether to remove it, or not, during post processing.

In my book, in this instance your creating a piece of fine art; you are portryaing a scene of beauty. It’s going to reduce market value with that cigarette end in it. If, on the other hand, your fundamental approach is to show everything as it actually is, for example a documentary piece, and the end user is buying the piece because they know that’s your work ethic. Then removing the cigarette end would mean changing the integrity of the photo.

DT

]]> By: Vanessa Jackman http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-716 Vanessa Jackman Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:57:40 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-716 Hee Hee! Yep, right after I save enough for a Nikon D3, a flash, a tripod ;-) Hee Hee! Yep, right after I save enough for a Nikon D3, a flash, a tripod ;-)

]]> By: Vanessa Jackman http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-6303 Vanessa Jackman Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:57:00 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-6303 Hee Hee! Yep, right after I save enough for a Nikon D3, a flash, a tripod ;-) Hee Hee! Yep, right after I save enough for a Nikon D3, a flash, a tripod ;-)

]]> By: Vanessa Jackman http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-4962 Vanessa Jackman Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:57:00 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-4962 Hee Hee! Yep, right after I save enough for a Nikon D3, a flash, a tripod ;-) Hee Hee! Yep, right after I save enough for a Nikon D3, a flash, a tripod ;-)

]]> By: Matt Brandon http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/2009/03/march-2009-wallpaper/comment-page-1/#comment-715 Matt Brandon Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:28:13 +0000 http://www.thedigitaltrekker.com/?p=1585#comment-715 So,Vanessa, I can put you down for one? ;) So,Vanessa, I can put you down for one? ;)

]]>