Delirium wrote:
GerardM wrote:
*When there is a picture of a painting; changing
the colours is BAD.
A photo
reflects what the picture looks like. Changing the colours arbitrarily
because it "looks good" is falsifying what the picture is about.
In general it's not true that taking a photo of a picture reflects
what it really looks like---a photo's colors depend on how it was
taken and exposed (if film camera) or digitally color-balanced (if
digital camera). I agree changing them arbitrarily is not a good
idea, but changing them to be more reflective of the actual colors is
not only a good idea by standard in professional photography. One way
of doing it is by including known colors in the picture (e.g. Pantone
swatches) and balancing those. But in general a photograph of a
painting will have incorrect colors and needs to be corrected, either
during the exposure in a darkroom, or during post-processing on a
digital image.
-Mark
Hoi,
You say it well: "One way of doing it is by including known colours in
the picture" this implies that only a person familiar with the picture
can do this. By these words you condemn almost all "corrections" by all
those well meaning persons who change picture because they can and
because it is "allowed = legal" and the picture is "Free".
Lucebert said it well; everything of value is defenseless.
Thanks,
GerardM