Hi Andrew,
I agree but the question of degree is valid. I recently posted the shot
below on
another list and triggered some good natured banter about the geese at the
bottom of the frame being Photoshopped in. A friend responded by claiming I
had in fact Photoshopped a lot of stuff out and he then posted what he
claimed was the original :
http://www.geebeephoto.com/temp/Leica/Hollowell_07.htm
http://www.sonc.com/geebeephoto.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Fildes" <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 12 September 2004 11:21
Subject: [OM] Re: What to do with seagulls
>
> Went to a Bill Brandt exhibit recently and noted that on one print, a
> seagull had been painted IN. I assumed that it was a piece of extensive
> retouching at a level that was common when I were a lad. Why do we get
> our knickers twisted over doing things digitally that once were done
> with a paintbrush - because it's easier and the results are better?
> If it's good enough for Bill, don't just leave it in - enhance it!
> Andrewf
>
>
> On 12/09/2004, at 12:39 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> > Wayne
> > I should leave it in. It looks like a seagull to me; I clone out birds
> > when the appearance is too close to dirt, scratches or hairs. but that
> > one looks good to me.
> > Chris
> >
> > On 11 Sep 2004, at 9:32, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> >> Dear Zs,
> >> Could you please have a look at this image and give me some advice:
> >> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/images/cn35-847-14-a.jpg
> >> On the left hand side in the sky area there is a "mark" which looks
> >> like a scratch or lint on the neg, in fact it is a seagull though you
> >> can't
> >> tell at this resolution.
> >> Should things like this be "cloned out" or left in ?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
