AG Schnozz wrote:
> Richard L wrote:
>> One problem. What's with all that "manipulation" with a shift
>> lens, that fancy OM2s and all those filters? And I bet you dodged
>> or burned in and used some fancy chemical concoction in paper and
>> film development and who knows what else. Heck, you might as well
>> have done it all digitally since you probably strayed quite far
>> from reality. ;-)
>
> Ok, I know you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek, but
> maybe I'll describe my process here to illustrate all of the heavy
> manipulations performed.
I most certainly did as I was in a playful mood. I was just reacting to
the many articles I've read that complain of the evils of digital
manipulation and presenting something other than reality as if there was
never any manipulation going on in the film world and that film somehow
presented an accurate picture of what the eye sees. One comment I
chuckled over was "digital seems more like science than art". Oh yeah,
as if there wasn't any science behind the properties of film and
printing paper or the composition of the many development chemicals.
It's not that I haven't felt some of these same concerns about digital
before I switched though I feel it was due to my reluctance to let go of
the past and try something new.
> Uh, wait a second. In this particular image, I did use the healing
> brush on a couple powerlines crossing the picture. (I buggered up a
> tiny spot as I was just slapping this one out).
I knew it, you reality manipulator. Given more time I'll bet you'll be
telling the list you cloned that bush in the lower right corner. ;-)
Richard L
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|