Thanks for the link Graywolf. Please excuse the self indulgent ramble that follows... To quote Bruce Wilson; "Who is going to control the light and the background when they can just replace it in Photoshop? Who is going to spend fifteen minutes framing a shot when there are more shots just around the corner they might miss?..."
The article really hit the mark for an issue that has been bothering me. Recently I've become more interested in still life photography. I normally take about 4-5 days between visualising what I want and getting the shot. This is partly due to having limited time to indulge myself with photography, but mostly because I really care about the lighting, composition and feel for each photograph. I normally pre-visualise and then work from there, but sometimes the modelling lights help me see a textural character or form that leap out at me and lead me in another direction. For the last two and a half weeks I've been finding the right materials (a particular sort of plexiglass) and light modifiers to create a photograph I can clearly visualise but am having trouble creating. I could simply do it by taking three shots, scan them, and do it all in Photoshop. The thing is, I don't want to. I want to create the image so I can see it through the viewfinder and know I have done the best I can to bring an idea to life. Part of me was saying "why bother" - and I made sure it was that part of me that read the article. Cheers, Simon -----Original Message----- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 3 August 2004 4:31 AM To: Pentax Discussion Malling List Subject: Intentional Photography? From time to time we talk about, serious photography vs. snapshots here on the list. I came across a link to the following article by Bruce wilson on APUG.org. I think he says it very well. http://wilson.dynu.net/dilution.asp -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
