Personally I shoot raw files with muted in-camera settings, so they always have to be "developed" into TIFFs or JPEGs for sharing.
Jostein.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 2:20 AM
Subject: RE: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem, and a little rant
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?
