But, hell, why let the facts get in the way of a good discussion?
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:42:24 -0500, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:56:19 -0000, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> He [frank] was (politely) taken to task by Bob W (I think) for having arather prominent sign in the picture (and a speck!). Both were
unnecessary to the picture, and were toned down or removed in later
versions. So I would agree that Frank doesn't always notice things that
other people might notice, and that removing these inessential elements
improved that particular picture without fundamentally changing it. <snip>
Well, this has certainly turned into an interesting thread behind my back! Well, not behind my back, but I went to bed last night with one or two comments on this pic (plus a brief off-list convo with Shel), and haven't been on-line since. Log on this evening, and I see this very interesting discussion! <g>
I want to look over the posts in more detail, but I did want to comment on the above parargraph, just so I don't forget:
First of all, I did certainly notice the great big sign. It was hard even for me to miss <vbg>. I took the sign out, very clumsily (on purpose) for humour. Someone off-list sent me a version in which they quite expertly cloned out the sign, and I must say, it looked great - very seemless, and one would never know that a sign had ever been there.
But, I'd never show the pic that way. It's just not what I do.
Just as I really liked Shel's second rework of the photo that spawned this thread (the one with both players in it). I told him that. It may even be better or more compelling than my original version. But I'd never use it, and would never do that to a photo myself.
I have no problems with people working their own photos that way. But, for me, it would be a dishonest photo. What's in the frame when I take the photo is what stays in the photo.
I'll crop rarely, if absolutely necessary. I'll allow my lab guy to dodge and burn and I'll do the PS equivalent. But that's it. Nothing more.
If a photo will look better by doing other stuff, well, that's too bad.
One could argue that if I dodge and burn and crop, then it's inconsistent not to consider other manipulations. That may be so, but I won't do it. I don't have to be logical, or justify my photo philosophy to anyone, it's just the way I choose to do it.
This isn't meant to take you to task, John, or to disagree with anything you said, I'm just explaining why certain things are the way they are.
Now to look over the rest of the thread with more of a critical eye, and likely comment a bit more <vbg>.
cheers, frank
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
