Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/25/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make. If I state that my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that? What level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult, use your own judgment.
Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were protesting about.
I agree. However, if his "tree picture shows damage from acid rain" he should be advised to keep the picture out of the rain, or it may be self-evident from the faded and wrinkled quality of the picture. Your advice really applies if the tree in the picture shows damage from acid rain. :-)
Couldn't help it~ Ec