At 06:43 PM 10/21/2005, Cotty wrote:
On 21/10/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/fallenleaf.html
>
>Saw it, snapped it, Photoshopped it ....
>
>I'm in the digital doldrums ...
These types of pics do nothing for me.
I've never even tried doing one - it's never interested me, and certainly
not just because I got a digital camera.
That's not to say that people shouldn't go ahead and experiment with
digital, especially as it effectively costs nothing to shoot the pixels.
Okay, this is starting to confuse me slightly. What is so "digital" about
the essence of this image? This could have actually been shot on film for
all I know. (That is, if Shel hadn't told us otherwise.)
I like the composition. I like the colors. I don't find any fault with this
image at all.
Are you sure that you aren't engaging in just a wee bit of anti-digital
snobbery, especially since Shel mentioned the use of Photoshop? I've
noticed that some people on this list seem to cringe at the mention of that
program. Many of these same people probably admire the works of famous
photographers who made their own meticulously prepared B&W prints. If one
understands the amount of manipulation that often went into much of the
traditional classic B&W printing, how could they look down on Photoshop?
That program does the same sorts of tricks that people have done in
darkrooms for many, many years. There really isn't too much that can be
done in Photoshop, which can't be done the old fashioned way.
Shel, I like your latest image, even if you and Cotty don't. ;)
take care,
Glen
