In a message dated 6/19/2005 4:23:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > MArnie wrote: >> There's good art and there's bad art. I seriously doubt that extreme >> manipulation can really make a bad photo a good photo. >
You really need to see what a professional retoucher can do to save a bad photograph for which a client paid 15K. I've seen bad photos become great photos. Of course the purists can claim that after 8 hours of PhotoShopping it's no longer a photo, but anyone looking at it would say, "that's a great photo." ========= Okay. I should have qualified it. I doubt your ordinary run-of-the-mill hobbyist can PS a bad photo into a good photo. (Verb.) I find this whole discussion sort of silly, actually. Good photographic technique will not be totally replaced by good PS technique. OTOH, what if it is? So what? The more people making images they like, the better. The only ones that should be overly concerned about this are possibly photographers who make a living at it. Both Shaw and Lepp seemed to have no problem (when I attended their workshops) in doing a lot of digital manipulation to make their photos better. How much? I don't know if either had a stopping point. I didn't ask. It didn't come up. And they both sell quite a bit. Photojournalism is one thing, but having fun taking pictures (being a hobbyist) and then turning out good prints or images is another. I find it kind of fun that the realm of "art" is so thoroughly invading photography. And, well, maybe photography was "art" all along. Possibly it's now just becoming much more obvious. Marnie aka Doe
