On Nov 23, 2005, at 7:11 AM, Fred wrote:
Well, in all seriousness, I'm not much for post-processing. For
me, the
fun is getting the shot in the camera, with nothing more than
printing it
full frame. Of course, sometimes a bit of burning and dodging and
even
cropping may be necessary.
But fiddling in PS or whatever isn't what I enjoy. So, I can't
see using
post focusing. Still, it's nice to know that such a tool may soon
be out
there, just in case...
This pretty much sums up my own thoughts. Photography is "fun with a
camera". Lots of post-processing is not fun (for me). It's nice
to know
that I can salvage some poor photos in a pinch, but a minimum of
processing
is my ideal.
"Fiddling in Photoshop" is such a disparagement. "Fun with a camera"
is a hobbyist point of view.
I do my *work* in Photoshop. That work is the effort required to
render what my 'fun with a camera' has produced into expressive forms
of representation. It's what I used to do with chemistry and an
enlarger. My 'fun with a camera' is just the other part of my
photographic work. I don't 'fiddle in Photoshop' ... I render my
photographs into reality.
This plenoptic stuff sounds like it might have some possibilities in
the future for certain types of picture taking, it's too early to say
whether it is truly useful or not. But if it does, the art of
photography will grow to exploit it.
Godfrey
