On 11/23/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Fiddling in Photoshop" is such a disparagement. "Fun with a camera" > is a hobbyist point of view.
I don't think it's disparaging at all. Some actually enjoy doing that stuff. I don't. Why is that disparaging? I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek using "fiddling", but it was nicely alliterative, don't you think? <g> Keep in mind, Godfrey, I ~am~ a hobbyist, so it makes sense that I might have a hobbyist's point of view. > I do my *work* in Photoshop. I do my ~work~ at the dispatch desk of Critical Path Couriers. <g> > 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. That stuff really doesn't interest me. Never has, never will. I'm not a pro. I like using my camera as a means of expressing myself, but once the photo's taken, I take the roll to a lab, and say, "here, develop this for me, will you?" Since Robert my lab guy does what I think is a fine job of printing stuff up for me, and I'm happy with those results (don't judge them from my inferior scanning technique, please), that's the extent of my involvement with processing and post-processing. But I understand that for many, darkroom work and it's digital equivalent/replacements is part of the joy of photography, and part of the expressive process. For pros, it's indispensible. I didn't intend to demean your wonderful efforts by my loose use of language, Godfrey. My apologies if I offended you. > 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. Agreed. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
