I'm afraid that with digital tools, "reality" is purely in the mind of the creator. Take a look up on photo.net and see how different "reality" has become - funny thing is I don't think the world has really changed that much.
-- Best regards, Bruce Friday, February 8, 2008, 10:16:57 AM, you wrote: ft> On Feb 8, 2008 12:41 PM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't have anything against artificial desaturation, if it's >> appropriate and done well, but I agree that in this case, its occurrence >> *naturally* is one of the things that makes this photo cool. ft> I've been trying to formulate a response to the "desaturate" train of ft> thought, but I think my point has already been made. ft> There's ~just~ enough colour in the stonework that one knows it's ft> "naturally" captured, and I prefer that to desaturating selected ft> portions of this particular image. Not that partial desaturation is ft> bad, but when "reality" (such as it is) works, why tamper? ft> ;-) ft> Thanks to everyone who commented! ft> cheers, ft> frank ft> -- ft> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
