Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
You are quite right of course that a news photograph is viewed with different expectations to that of an art photograph.
Anyone following a link to my photographic web site would quickly notice the description "Fine Art Landscape" used on every page title.
If I took an easel and started painting a dawn and finished at sunset I would produce an image that was the distillation of many different moments. No one would question the integrity of the artist.
However the moment I produces a photograph that may or may not be such a distillation there arises a multitude that say that can not be real and therefor I am a cheat.
I am quite happy to state on my web site that some of my images are manipulations. That includes high dynamic range, panoramic stitches, visible / invisible light composites, long exposures, composite images and a host of other petty alterations.
I have done such things for years in the darkroom and no one ever questioned it.
Recently I have moved most of my work into digital media and everyone suddenly starts getting a fur ball in their throat about it.
What is most annoying is that if I tell people the work that went into a traditional wet print it seems to add some perceived value to the picture, but if I tell people the work that goes on in the computer it is just dismissed as trickery!
In the face of such abuse I have now taken the position of the most famous tricksters of all...... Stage magicians.
When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, everyone knows it is a trick, they just don’t know how it is done. Sometimes it’s misdirection, sometimes it’s mechanical, sometimes there is not a trick at all but it still looks like magic.
The point is that a magician never reveals how a trick is done because it will destroy the illusion.
I choose not to reveal how a picture is created for the same reason.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road