3 ms·
It's just not clear to someone with no photographic knowledge. Can't you do that sort of blurring or lightening of a shadow chemically, albeit with a steady han
by bartonfink 15y ago
It's just not clear to someone with no photographic knowledge. Can't you do that sort of blurring or lightening of a shadow chemically, albeit with a steady hand?
Perhaps the principle is simply that the AP doesn't want to expose itself to a slippery slope by allowing an innocuous violation of the policy to go unpunished. Again, I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so - I just don't know enough about photography to say with certainty "yes, this guy f'ed up and should never work again."
- justincormack 15y agoYou could lighten it in the darkroom, which sounds like AP would allow, but not remove it completely.
- andrewcooke 15y agoyou can try to remove the shadow in the darkroom by "dodging" (blocking light from the projector so that the negative doesn't shine so brightly on the area that will be dark in the final print). but it's very hard to do well for something with a well-defined outline and even if you could match the outline exactly (perhaps by printing a mask) it would look odd because the detail would be missing in that area. that's why something like photoshop doesn't attempt to correct the brightness, but instead "patches over" with a copy of similar texture from elsewhere in the image. but this is all going off on a tangent. it's not really "science" or even "practice" that's important here, but a culture of trust. and so what the newspapers have done is argue along the lines of "people used to trust film photos, so we will freeze things there and allow only what was possible then[1]". so the limits are really quite arbitrary (but not unreasonable). [1] without cutting up and pasting over and ...