Sign in to add comments or Join (It's free and fast!)

• Bruce DeBoer – January 29 2006

  I'm not sure I'd subscribe to giving everyone access to my photoshop "recipes" or giving everyone access to all the layers but I thin there may be room for a tag that shows it has been the result of combining two images.
  
  
  
  If the digital capture is to be used for proof in a courtroom or if it will to be questioned with regards to authentisity, then the photographer should leave one copy unretouched to prove it's been enhanced and not composited. That's my take anyway.

• metin – January 27 2006

  What about when the 'alterations' are legitimate. How would you distinguish between someone fixing or retouching vs. altering?
  
  
  
  Maybe the historical process need to be embedded into digital images whereby the viewer has access to ALL revisions since the original output?

• Bruce DeBoer – January 27 2006

  As a professional photographer I have a love/hate relationship with digital imaging. The years of photos providing proof of events is over and has been for some time. While it is still possible to detect some altered images, my current thought is that I'd like to see a perminent tag or digital water mark imbedded into altered images.
  
  
  
  Any comment on that? Pros / cons?

• metin – January 26 2006

  Where is all of this going? Are we soon going to be yearning for 'reality blogs' where the unretouched photos of celebrities will be voted off one by one until we choose the winning non-doctored photo, possibly without makeup and cosmetic enhancements...Not!