Composite photographs have been made since Mr Fox's time at least. You guys know what the difference is? Computer weenies with no appreciation of photographic history can do it now.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Some of the presentations at GFM had me thinking about the manipulation.
I didn't attend the digital guy's afternoon talk, but saw the two film
presenters on Saturday and Sunday along with our dynamic duo's
critique of the near winners.
The comment was made that 'Photoshop' is not a verb. The film
presenters claimed to be standing in a puddle of tears after the
digital manipulation guy's presentation. I guess he showed easy ways
to punch-up those drab elements with Photoshop. I saw what the film
shooters meant as they later talked about returning to a location at
different times, on different days to get the sky just right.
'Composition is great but the sky is too flat in this picture...no
problem, we'll photoshop a new one in!' left them in tears.
Now that makes me uneasy. I want to know that that beautiful
landscape is real, not a 'collage' of great individual photos. I want
to see an image capture of a spectacular moment in the real world.
Otherwise it's just a painting in digital.
Regards, Bob S.
On 6/17/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian"
Subject: Re: How to make Good Pictures (Let's Free the Captured Images)
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For me, a photograph is a true reflection of the reality before the
camera.
When the alterations get to the point where there is no longer a true
reflection, I start to have problems.
Statements like this have always bothered me. Photography, by its very
nature, can never be a "true reflection of the reality before the
camera."
Bill, even you manipulate the "truth" consciously or not. The very act of
framing a shot is manipulation (avoiding distracting elements, framing to
avoid the starving child in the happy scene or including the garbage pile
with the majestic blue heron). The choice of film (crazy saturated color
with pushed Velvia or B&W) does not give an accurate "truthful"
reproduction
of the scene. The choice of lens (wide angles with distorting properties;
think big-nosed portraits or telephotos making the moon look oversized in
a
scenic) changes the perspective our eyes see.
Even photojournalism is a manipulation, the photographer showing you only
what he wants you to see.
Points taken. Photojournalists are probably the worst offenders, since often
they have an agenda, and want pictures to match it.
Thats called visual editorializing, and I don't agree with it.
However, when I say a "true reflection", I mean that quite literally.
A photo can never be more than what it is, which is a two dimensional
rendering of a 3 dimensional reality, that goes with the territory.
Punch up the colours with Velvia and a polarizer if you wish, but don't
start adding or subtracting elements from the scene to suit your whim.
William Robb
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005
