----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'm not saying they are not valid ways of expression, but I just don't see > them as part of photography, or the photographic process, per se. They are > all manipulations done TO a photograph after the photograph has been made.
OK, One simple question. What do you call the process of making the "images" BEFORE they are manipulated? I call that "photography" therefore, to me, the process to create the final result (call it "illustration" or "collage" if you'd like) involves photography and can therefore be considered "part of photography or the photographic process" (to quote your statement above). > > The point of the article, as I understood it, is that it doesn't matter > what you "capture," you can always change it later in Photoshop. Instead > of relying on your eye for framing properly and good exposure techniques, > or seeking out a good subject and waiting for good light, On this point i'm with you. I believe in "getting it right in the camera." But to say that the process of "capturing [any] image" and manipulating it in PS (or the darkroom; or with scissors for that matter) is not PHOTOGRAPHY or part of the PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESS is not logical. Photoshop will > The article suggested that > this is consistent with "making a good photograph." May I suggest that it > should more correctly called something other. Sure, call it "polishing a turd" for all I care. It's still using photography and is still part of the photographic process. Christian
