Darren,
I understand your thoughts and doubts...
That's the situation for when things are not Black and White (and they
almost never that way, unless you used a B&W film or converted it ;-) ).
Everybody draws the line where he/she chooses. That's what's called "Art".
But seriously, let me throw in a few arguments that follow the line
I quoted below.
Cross-processing a film is a counterfeit. Eastman's color film was a
counterfeit of Technicolor.
35 mm photo film (or for that matter any film) was a counterfeit of
plates.
And these days, any digital photography is counterfeit, as it is all
stored in non-visual way, but just with a bunch of "0"s and "1"s stored on
electronic media. And then it's everybody's subjective interpretation of
those. (And if you are using LR, - depending on which process you choose,
you might get different results.)
And going even deeper, - photography is a counterfeit of painting..
Cheating. Using some weird chemistry instead of real paints...
The bottom line, - my view at this issue is as follows: Don't worry about
the methods, as long as you are not trying to pass one for another. Call
it what it is, and if your like the results, enjoy them!
... and the process, whatever that is.
:-)
Cheers,
Igor
Darren Addy Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:40:28 -0800 wrote:
...
The problem with my attitude is that it's not consistent. Where do I
draw the line? Because any time I convert a digital print to
monochrome using the great Silver Efex Pro 2, I'm doing the same
thing. I'm creating a counterfeit of an analog process that few
practice today. Or if I use a cross-processing filter on a color
image, I'm simulating a process that used to exist in the days of
color film processing.
...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
