DPP Part 4 - Black and White - Exercise 1 - Correction

DPP Part 4 - Black and White - Exercise 1 - Correction

This exercise requires us to identify two images, one with dust spots and one with lens flare and use a post processing tool to correct them

Dust Spots

In the mono version of this image there is a dust spot above the brides head, looks like a dark circle:

I've zoomed to 300% and used the spot healing tool selecting an area next to the dust spot to be used to overlay the dust spot

Pre-Fix:

Post-Fix:

At 300% I am unable to see my post processing fix of the dust spot. Can you?

Arguably the removal of a dust spot whilst a post processing fix as it is an issue with the camera then it should be considered an ethical change as it is not changing what is in front of the camera lens.

Interestingly though how ethical is it to convert the image to mono. Whilst the image remains the same desaturating the colour is not what was originally recorded.

I wonder if the days before colour if this act of capturing images in black and white was considered ethical?

Lens Flare:

Well perhaps I am blessed with good coatings on my lenses else or perhaps my tendency to use lens hoods has paid off as I can't find many images with lens flare. However this has several flare spots which I will look at but not the major half rungs. Its interesting that there is a post processing filter to add lens flare so perhaps in certain circumstances is a desired image element

Here is my starting position:

I have used the clone stamp to remove the obvious flare spots but have not attempted to remove the halo rings:

I think on the scale of very justifiable and questionably justifiable the removal of dust spots and lens flare for me is in the very justifiable in the digital world. My reasons for this would be that were you an observer behind the photographer then the scene captured would reflect that that camera captured with the removable of lens "issues".

I would think that reportage photography to have perhaps the toughest of demands that the the image captured reflects exactly that seen and the removal of dust spots and flare, if required, would still be morally acceptable

However it is not always post processing that raises the debate regarding what changes are morally acceptable or not, it appears that this can also be applied where the staging of an image can also raise concerns.

With this image the judges at a competition run by the Natural History Museum initially awarded the photographer the top prize. However controversy that the wolf was not in fact a rare wild specimen and was in fact a tame specimen result in the photographer being stripped of the award. 

Additionally whilst the image is certainly a dramatic capture it is considered that a wild wolf would not have jumped the fence but would instead have slipped through the gaps in the fence.

So whilst argument as to the morality regarding post processing an image remains there is also a requirement in the morality to be applied to the actual capture of an image. Acceptable perhaps in the studio where the image is seen to be staged, in the case of the 2009 Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, the wolf not being wild broke the competition rules.