Reposts?

I think I asked this once before, but I can't find the answer sooooooo

Is there a forum rule about reposting someone elses request for critique images, within their original thread, showing suggested adjustments?

Most review sites encourage that, but I sure don't want to step on someones toes.

We don't currently have a rule for that.

I think we are small enough to allow that sort of thing -- unless someone explicitly requests that their photo not be modified in any way.

A complaint can be rectified very quickly by deleting threads, anyway.

What do you all think?

I guess I'm somewhat of a purist in that I rarely modify the content of my photos. When I post for critique, I like to hear what strikes the viewer about the image and how I could've made it better. When the viewer modifies the content of the image, however, it doesn't help me because I won't perform heavy post-editing and removing that fish or sponge may have been impossible in the photographic environment. It is not a big deal, and I don't feel that my rights are being violated, but its just not the way I critique my photos. Crops and exposure modifications - OK, alteration of content - no thanks.

Further, I think it weakens the case for all of us digital photographers when we make a routine of image alteration. I'm so sick and tired of people asking "what kind of camera do you shoot," as if the camera does all the work, or assuming that I've altered a photo because it is well lit or very colorful. I never had to deal with that BS when I shot film.

I agree, Kasey -

I'm all for exposure and cropping modifications. Altering the actual content of the image is something that I wouldn't to do someone else's image.. unless it was a joke, of course.

'Reposting' forms an important part of a critique, it not only helps the poster, but hundreds of other people too. "A picture paints a thousand words" In this instance it may say one thousand before, but several thousand after critical changes have been made to the image to enhance it, especially exposure/contrast and colour corrections. So many people have dumped images as no-hopers, when all they need was a little tweek here and there to turn it into at least a keeper. Here, I think we have helped greatly. In fact this is obvious from later postings by post-critique individuals.

At the end of the day (just to ensure we're in the correct place) no copyright infringement has taken place as the image is still 100% that of the original photographer, and so far no poster encouraging critique, even of the lowest magnetude has complained.

There is only so much you can do to a photograph in critique, one cannot or should not move things around to completely change the photo's composition. The originator learns nothing from it. A crop is different, and an important skill to learn in image presentation - As Kasey pointed out.

This is why I posted the image manipulation thread in critique, to enable people to rethink before posting an image in the competitions.

As Eric pointed out there have been obvious "Jokes" but done in the best possible taste with an obvious humour (like Eric's Octo-hat).

Ad Agencies may take 12 images and turn it into a one page composition - Nothing wrong with that as long as all the images come from one photographer or consenting adults - The difference here is that it's no longer a photo but a 'graphic representation'.

The what camera statement - Yes, it can be important as advice for DSLR's will differ to that say of a Oly 5050, but this is taking the thread off track again.

Hey Bob I think you misunderstood me - what I meant was among casual divers or occasional photographers that see my photos the reaction - Wow, what kind of camera do you use?!?! Typically these are people that don't have a clue about photography and the question implies that they'd just need to go out and get that camera wand Wola - instant success! NOT!!!

I think that the simplest camera in the hands of a skilled photographer would spur the same question.

I wasn't referring to comments on this forum. It's totally different when an educated photographer asks the same question as they attempt to accumulate knowledge. I'm guilty of doing exactly that any time I see a practiced photographer with a system I am unfamiliar with, or just to stir up conversation.

I take your point, but the images from skilled photographers do inspire people across the board to take even the minutest technical interest in how that image was captured...

We should move this conversation to somewhere else - Pick a slot!

I am definately with Eric and Bob on this one.

Photoediting with a computer is not any different than what can be done in a darkroom or by a pro lab to enhance a negative. Cropping, Burning, Dodging, even garbage removal is ok in my book.

I do draw the line when it comes to adding any elements to an image. I am not against it, I just think you should so state it was done.

This is an argument that will rage amongst photographers for years......with no real solution that I can see.

Personally, the only photographs that I believe should be untouched are p/j images where a story is being reported. If its for sale to an agency, the only thing that matters is the client, if its for your personal use, than all that matters is that you are happy with it!

That said, i usually will say what I have done to edit a pic.

http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=5613

Theres an example of crappy shot, tha I made an semi-crappy shot by removing divers legs, arms and other crap from the background.