Thank you.

I’m neither a photojournalist nor a forensic photographer, so if I clone out, say, a bright yellow fire hydrant in the scene, I won’t make a point of disclosing it. But there is a tipping point, and I think (hope) I know where it is. I will label something a “composite” or a “photoillustration” if I have done something relatively radical, like using Photoshop’s AI Generative Fill to remove or replace something. I love that I can do it! But I know way too many photographers that erupt in fury if they feel they have been fooled, and I get it; I let them know up front that manipulations have been made. So far, no one has ever offered to punch me in the nose. They may hate what I do, but at least they know going in that they are not looking at trVth.

The problem is, you can’t enforce ethics. Even the big agencies with uber-strict rules get uber tough when an otherwise Pulitzer-winning photographer gets caught altering a newspicture. How many top-tier photojournalists have been fired and banned for, say, (famously) cloning out another photographer’s distracting camera in the foreground?

John and Jane Q. Public are just having fun, captivated by the awesome things they can do, without a care in the world about potential consequences.

The Portra 400 simulation used here falls a little short. Looking at the two, the right-hand one has much more dynamic range – while the film one has harder shadows and highlights. If you really wanted to faithfully emulate the film (which some may not want to as softer/milky shadows and highlights is also a lovely tone), it could be fixed with more contrast or harder highlight and shadow settings, as well as a minor colour shift change as the digital ones are looking more turquoise generally in the examples.