I agree completely. Photographers have always tried to enhance their
work as best they can in processing and printing. Now, we have tools
available that allow much more control. Using them as well and as
completely as one can is appropriate. Photography that records no more
than what is actually there is something akin to a xerox machine.
Photography that incorporates the photographers vision in what that
photographer chooses to include in the frame, in how he exposes that
frame, and in what he does with it afterward is an art. I don't believe
that my work will ever rise to the level of art, but I will pursue all
means at my disposal to make it as good as it can be.
Paul
On Apr 5, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of
post-production editing for photographers:
"What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our
modern
digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really
don't
care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the
field � I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction.
Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a
picture in
the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end
all �
it's a beginning."
Any comments on this?
Shel
