Every photo you see here has been "processed on a computer" and even the color pics have been "adjusted". Is there really so great a difference between adding a hint of tone to a B&W photo and adding saturation to color, or enhancing certain areas of a photograph? Or is a hint of sepia any different than shooting on super saturated films like Velvia or Ultra Color and all the rest that have built into them color manipulation, and are as far from reality in one direction as a straight B&W print is in the other? No one complains (at least not very loudly or very often) about the color manipulation these films provide. Nor do I hear a peep when the digi cam users say that they've set their cameras to enhance contrast, saturate colors, and so on. I guess if the manipulation is in color and if it's digital it's not quite the same thing as converting to B&W
My guess is that had someone shot this originally in B&W and made a silver gelatin print which had been toned, no one would say a word about process or whether it should have been shot in color or not. But what the hell do I know ... I'm lost in the past, don't shoot digital, process my own B&W negative film, use a darkroom, and use old fashioned cameras. Clearly (and I say this without sarcasm), I am pretty much out of touch with contemporary photography. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Markus Maurer > > Beside (maybe) tilting a bit I would not change anything in Josteins > picture, certainly not the colors. > It is already very good. Do we really have to "process" every photo on the > computer nowadays?
