<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Pixel Is a Pixel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/582/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/582</link>
	<description>Digital Inspiration from Harold Davis</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mathieu</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/582#comment-5047</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathieu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/582#comment-5047</guid>
		<description>I've recently stumbled unto a process called stacking, which essentially allows you to keep the sharpest, in-focus areas of each of a set of photographs with limited depth of field, to have everything in frame nice and sharp.

In macros, this has the effect of eliminating that narrow DOF which instantly identifies a picture as having a large magnification factor... which in some ways makes it look like it might to an observer &lt;em&gt;if he were to as scale with the subject&lt;/em&gt;.

It's definitely manipulation, but in some ways it restores the image to a more faithful vision of reality by eliminating a technical artifact of photography as a technique.

The same can be said of HDR images... or panoramic stitching.

I agree with you that it is not trivial to determine what is acceptable or ethical. Perhaps the only thing one can do is add a caption, like the 'artificial color' used with many astronomy or scientific illustrations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve recently stumbled unto a process called stacking, which essentially allows you to keep the sharpest, in-focus areas of each of a set of photographs with limited depth of field, to have everything in frame nice and sharp.</p>
<p>In macros, this has the effect of eliminating that narrow DOF which instantly identifies a picture as having a large magnification factor&#8230; which in some ways makes it look like it might to an observer <em>if he were to as scale with the subject</em>.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s definitely manipulation, but in some ways it restores the image to a more faithful vision of reality by eliminating a technical artifact of photography as a technique.</p>
<p>The same can be said of HDR images&#8230; or panoramic stitching.</p>
<p>I agree with you that it is not trivial to determine what is acceptable or ethical. Perhaps the only thing one can do is add a caption, like the &#8216;artificial color&#8217; used with many astronomy or scientific illustrations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Photoblog 2.0: 
   &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive:   &#187; Mono Lake Sunset</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/582#comment-3284</link>
		<dc:creator>Photoblog 2.0: 
   &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive:   &#187; Mono Lake Sunset</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/582#comment-3284</guid>
		<description>[...] and one part post-processing tools. Nadine herself aptly summed up a recent essay of mine, A Pixel Is a Pixel, about digital manipulation as folows: &#8220;ALL digital images are manipulated.&#38;#8 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and one part post-processing tools. Nadine herself aptly summed up a recent essay of mine, A Pixel Is a Pixel, about digital manipulation as folows: &#8220;ALL digital images are manipulated.&amp;#8 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
