Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: How much is too much?

Subject: [OM] Re: How much is too much?
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:11:21 +0000
Simon,

Everything you have said is, in both thought and expression, almost a direct 
quote of what I was saying only a couple of years ago.  Maybe you're made of 
sterner stuff than I am and more able to resist temptation from the dark side, 
but beware: this group has an insidiously coercive power to corrupt.  I didn't 
think they'd get me, drag me over, but they did.  Oh, the shame, the shame!

Now back to Picture Window Pro.  I've got some cloning, cropping, dodging, 
layering and burning in to do.  I'm making a composite of ex-wives' best parts. 
 :-)

Walt

--
"Anything more than 500 yards from 
the car just isn't photogenic." -- 
Edward Weston

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Simon Worby" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Moose wrote:
> 
> >> But nevertheless I don't agree with digital manipulation:
> >
> > Why just digital manipulation? As others pointed out, retouching,
> > manipulation, enhancement, etc. have all been in use for 150
> > years or more. And the tools were... the tools of the graphics arts.
> 
> To be honest, I'm not keen on any manipulation that isn't executed at
> the time of taking the photograph. Even cropping shouldn't (arguably) be
> necessary. One of the things I particularly like about photography is
> it's honesty. Whilst I can see the point of manipulating images
> (particularly if they contain ugly man-made items, such as double yellow
> lines in front of a thatched cottage!) I'm not convinced by it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > True, of course, but where is that "certain point"? Use of a shift
> lens,
> > for example, alters the image the eye views into something the mind
> > sees/prefers.
> 
> You see, to me that's okay, because it's executed at the time of taking
> the photo. It may be a strange way to draw the line, but it works for
> me!
> 
> > When I see a subject I like, then carefully adjust my viewpoint for
> the
> > perspective I want, then remove a couple of distracting elements,
> which
> > is that, photography or graphic design?
> 
> To me, it's both.
> 
> > If Walt knew the guy was really out and went over to tidy up the scene
> > of trash, is that different than removing some after pushing the
> button? 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > What if the whole thing was staged, and that's just Walt's NY drinking
> > buddy, who posed for him?
> 
> A posed photograph is just fine, so long as you're not lying by
> pretending it's reportage.
> 
> > How does all this relate to the battlefield photos of the Civil War,
> > where various elements, inlcuding bodies of the dead, were moved to
> > improve the composition?
> 
> Again, if it's for dramatic purpose, it's fine. If it's presented as
> "the truth", then it's wrong, and it's a lie.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Artistically libertine,
> 
> I try to be artistically libertine (as I am in almost everything!), but
> I also like the idea of honesty. I don't alter my photos, and I say as
> much. I think it's a pity to have to assume that everyone else's have
> been altered.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz