>> As a purist, I must say no to any despicable alteration of the original
>> material in this manner. :-) Seriously, even though I put a smiley there.
>>
>> Tom
><SNIP stuff about correcting verticals in Photoshop>
>
>Ah, but Tom, have you never tilted your baseboard when enlarging a shot of a
>building to correct the converging verticals? I think that it's
>legitimate if
>you do not access to a camera with movements.
Surely, the finished print / slide / image on a monitor is the result of
a process that involves any number of aspects, for example manipulation
in a darkroom / manipulation in Photoshop / or how about going back
earlier in that process and using a lens that corrects converging
verticals / using a filter / heck even smearing the lens with petroleum
jelly! I believe that my original recorded image to be (an essential)
part of a means to an end, which is what I produce for you to see.
As it happens, I prefer to keep my images as close to what I saw when I
pressed the shutter, so I will optimise the image to my liking, to convey
what I felt at the time. I would not place (say) an image of a plane
next to an image of the moon when the two were taken seperately, at
different times, perhaps on different days. Though if I saw such an
image, I would admire it for what it was, not think about how it was
achieved. Sure, I would admire the photographer for telling me that he
waited hours for that composition, but unless he or she was there to tell
me, I wouldn't know. I look at the finished piece and I like it or I
don't.
My .02 pence.
Cheers,
Cotty
_______________________________________________________
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads
www.macads.co.uk
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
