[Geysers] Faked(?)/Enhanced(?) Photos

[Steven Krause]

Thank you. You remind me that a lot of people don't understand the 
technical end of photography, which is why (IMO) this discussion appeared.

"Faked" is a pretty strong term, and those of us who have done 
photography for years (40+ in my case) understand that nothing rendered 
on film, paper, or projected image represents the way an individual sees 
the scene. Things like brightness, color hue, contrast and saturation 
have always been part of the photographer's art in producing a viewable 
image. Even slide film. I belong to the religion of Kodachrome, but 
that's because I knew it had contrast range problems, a tendency towards 
blue and a few other issues and how to work around them to get the image 
I wanted to project. Want a warmer image, or one with more saturated 
reds? Shoot Fuji Velvia. Different color palette, different reaction to 
light. Want more tonal range towards a "natural", "daylight" appearance? 
Shift to a print film with a good quality, glossy printing paper.

But I digress. I want to ask you a question as "an average viewer". If 
you are looking at a "I want to hang this on my wall at home" quality of 
photograph, what information matters most to you?

My take-away so far (Yes, I really AM interested, because this list has 
a variety of viewpoints on the topic that AREN'T primarily photographers 
but are interested in various aspects of historical recording):

1> Has the image had elements added, removed, or significantly altered 
from the original scene content (apart from touching out camera 
artifacts such as lens flare and dust specks.)

2> Has it been "multiple image" enhanced in any way?

3> ????????? Here's where I get hazy and interested. And don't feel 
annoyed if you really don't have an opinion beyond this - that's a good 
data point for myself as well.

Thanks!

Steve Krause

On 10/23/2012 7:07 PM, Michael Murphy wrote:
> Hello:
>
> If I was purchasing a photo (or seeing a published copy), I would want to know if it is a HDR photo, or if it had been "Photoshopped."  If HDR, it would be nice to see the individual images (files, frames, whatever the proper term) that were compiled to make the finished product.  Also, I would like to see some mention of any computer enhancement (manipulation?)of color, brightness, etc.   In the past, it was not uncommon to see information like shutter speed, f stop, exposure time, etc. included with a photo.
>
> I hesitate to think of myself as even an amateur photographer.  "Picture taker" is a much better term.   However, sometimes when I see a photo I like, I wonder if it is something that I could possibly come close to replicating.  It would be nice to know if a photo involves more than just a camera, tripod and my eye.  My poor photos ("It is not like the one I saw in the store!") are solely due to poor equipment and terrible technique.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>

-- 
Steven Krause
Chillicothe, IL