I would say anything you can do in the dark room is OK, so levels certainly
is. I think cheating (or 'cheating') is passing off, say, a picture of a
tiger shot in a zoo, superimposed onto a shot of it's natural habitat, as a
true 'wildlife' picture. If the shots are for illustration, as opposed to
art, most people don't really care how they were made (e.g. advertising)
Purists would argue a photograph should be an unadulterated view of a
subject, as it was at the time of exposure. That's one point of view. Many
contemporary landscape photographers now use much manipulation at the time
of exposure, warm up, grad & ND filters for example, arguably using Velvia
also! That's another point of view. I now prefer to forget about
filtration at the taking stage and do it, if necessary, in Photoshop. This
allows me to concentrate solely on the picture, photo, image, call it what
you like, as does using my OMs, incidentally, as opposed to some modern
wonderbrick! I think all you are suggesting is filtration at a different
stage in the process.
I have started to think in a Photoshop kind of way whilst shooting,
sometimes taking a shot anyway, though perfect composition may be spoiled by
having a car or person or tree branch in the way, hoping I may be able to
clone it out later. I think honesty is the key here, especially to
yourself, but don't forget photography itself was originally scorned by
some artists - as was impressionist art! Pushing the limits of anything
always attracts critisism.
Andy Gilbert
Exeter
Devon
England
< 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 >
|