Talk:Photograph manipulation/Archive 1

message: Time illustrator Matt Mahurin was the one to alter the image, saying later that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling."   
The focus of the first half of the sentence is Matt Mahurin and his role as a New York Times illustrator.
Andyohio 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think this statement is spam:

message: Look at the series of images and the content of this web page:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html
It has the same general content, but it quotes its sources better than this Wikipedia page.  Perhaps someone took material from this source and put it in Wikipedia.   Andyohio 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the content is similar, the purpose of using it isn't. Here we are presenting the styles of photo manipulation while they are commenting on changing history for bias or other purposes. There is no copyright violation present as all pictures appear to be properly sources with appropriate fair use rational, or are otherwise ineligble for copyright and no text was directly copied from the aforementioned link. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: identical material found elswhere on the Internet

message: I changed the title and various instances from "manipulation" to "editing". Excessive use of the word "manipulation" implies that there is no good reason to edit photos. There needs to be more said about the creative and aesthetic reasons for photo editing to offset the negativity. If enough cannot be said to offset the negativity, then the political implications needs to be in a separate article titled "controversial photo manipulation" or something to the effect. Oicumayberight 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is too negative and political

message: I think this article is, in its current state, fairly poor. The structure of the article for one needs improving;  starting the first paragraph "In digital editing.." seems premature or too specific as surely a paragraph discussing history or general overview should be first. There is nothing about the continuity from traditional retouching  to digital retouching e.g. unsharp mask, nothing about the growing use of cgi alongside photoshop within the industry. What about a mention for photoshop aside from a link? I would also say that there is a fairly good argument for either merging the article with digital image editing into an all encompassing article or making clear that this article soley discusses the social/propaganda side of photo editing. And an additional article or pre-digital techniques? I would also question the redirect to this article from "retouching"; i think most people use the term with the sense of digital image editing. Also what is the point in saying that images can be obtained from stock libraries?? They have originated through either a digital or film-based process in the first place - isn't this a bit like saying tomatos can be grown in a greenhouse or a field or brought in a supermarket? 
What about the cited controversies over retouched images within the press - how extensive is this?   There a case last summer where a Reuters (i think) photographer was sacked for using the clone tool in photoshop to make explosions look more impressive.
3tmx 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article could be greatly improved