Nice creativity Elines
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0dd6/a0dd67a17ec8b6e6bcb45d7047f3d9bfe87084bb" alt="Smile :) :)"
........I like that.
Thanks for that
(We won't mention that the thread is in the Photography forum, shall we?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba9a2/ba9a21a68dec62fad51a2b2ae35f280c4387bf57" alt="Roll Eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:"
).
Yes good point but .........
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0dd6/a0dd67a17ec8b6e6bcb45d7047f3d9bfe87084bb" alt="Smile :) :)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0dd6/a0dd67a17ec8b6e6bcb45d7047f3d9bfe87084bb" alt="Smile :) :)"
we could have a very esoteric discussion on where to draw the 'line' between unedited photography/photographs with 'reasonable' tweaking/photographs with heavy editing/computer created stuff.
For example, do we just say it's ok if it is equivalent to what used to be done in a dark room?
And what about photographing something straight off the telly (ignoring copyright issues - I'm talking hear about artistic worth)?
I guess it's another one of those areas where everyone will have different but valid views.
For what it's worth, the conclusion I've come to is that I am trying to create something that I like, and sometimes it is an unedited photograph, and sometimes it is tweaked and sometimes it is all done on gimp. So far I have only taken pictures of television screen images just to see if it was technically possible - and it is.
Personally, I'd need persuading that an otherwise good image of something on a television programme was of any real merit/ethically sound.
Mind you - I'd be interested in any other views, especially from people who have been doing photography fairly seriously for ages - I have only been into it with any intent for about five months, although I have been dabbling for years.
PS not sure how creative I was in making the the ice picture - I wasn't sure what it would look like till I pressed the final button