Folks,
It seems to me that most of what we Zuikoholics do is manipulation. We use
different focal length lenses which, by their nature, alter perspective. We
use filters to control color temperature or the polarity of light. We use
different emulsions to achieve different results depending on a
pre-determined criteria.
If we shoot B & W and do our own processing we cannot help but "manipulate"
the print. It is part of the "art" or "craft" of producing an acceptable
print.
I do alot of macro photography in the Botanical Garden in San Diego. I
recently took did some photography and used the inability of the camera to
record what my eyes can see to produce what I think are some very beautiful
photos. The failing? The camera can't record a brightly lighted flower and
a very dark background at the same time. You must expose for one or the
other. If I expose for the flower the background is very dark or black.
The result is a beautiful flower suspended in air. I "manipulated" with the
camera.
When I take a photo of my grand daughter I often tweek it a bit in
Photoshop. While she is a naturally beautiful child, the camera can make
her skin look too blue or too pink, or whatever. So, I fix it in Photoshop.
The result is a real nice photo of a beautiful little girl.
My point in the long ramble is that we are almost all "guilty" of some
manipulation. Most of us do alot of it. It's about the results for most of
us. That's where it is for me. That the "Masters" did it is instructive
for me rather than cautionary or a cause for me to denigrate or condemn
their work.
Dave Dougherty
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|