I don't agree with you on this point, Nick. Photoart (and the technical capabilities of Photoshop) give you the possibility to follow your inspiration. Like a sculptor, who, from an ugly piece of stone or wood can make a beautiful artwork. Photography has never been simply documentary, a faithful rendering of "reality" as some say. As long as my pic brings out something of the personality of the subject (in this case the English poet) - and I think it does - my image manipulation should be legitimate. Anyway, many thanks for raising this question which points toward the heart of photography and art. Warm regards, Gyorgy
Hmm... I would say then, that there is no point in making "succesful" an image that was unsuccesfully shot, György, since it doesn't represent any vision one had at shooting time. If we start beautifying images after the shot, then all images are great, and we are all great photographers no matter what we shoot. Which would of course be absurd.
thanks for your visits and very thoughtful comments. Unfortunately the original of this was rather weak, noisy and uninteresting, this is why I have experimented with effects and a radical crop compared with the original. There is no point to see it, unless for educational purposes. Warm regards, Gyorgy
It is a good one for hie and composition, György, as far as I can see through your alteration. It must have been a good image for itself, perhaps even better in original. So any chance to attach the orihinal too?
0 
{K:127263} 3/24/2009
