George wrote:
> > I say we allow any manipulation that the maker wants. If
> you allow only
> > some manipulation, where do you draw the line ?
> >
> Which is why I vote for no manipulation. It's " A Day in the
> Life ", not " A
> Vision in the Mind of the Submitter. " I want to see an image
> that is as I
> *could* have seen if I was where the photographer was when he
> tripped that
> shutter.
As soon as the photographer trips the shutter, what he has is an
interpretation ONLY, it can never be the "real" scene. Just by selecting a
certain viewpoint, cropping, exposure, etc, etc the photographer has
deprived you of making a completely objective evaluation of what he has
captured.
> Just my 2c, I don't want any flames because I see others'
> points too. I think
> we all have to make some allowance in our minds when we
> understand we are
> viewing an image on the computer screen, and not viewing a
> print directly.
> Which I realize is an argument to allow the submitter
> manipulation of the
> image! Geez!
> But if we are allowing critique of the images, isn't the best
> software
> program, and/or computer operator going to shine, and not
> necessarily the
> best *photographer* ?
If that were the case, why don't we exclude certain lenses & bodies (e.g.
Gary has an unfair advantage because he used an OM-4Ti, multi spot metered
the scene through his 50mm f2 macro, Bill has an unfair advantage because he
has been a professional photographer for 20 years and his image was scanned
on an Olympus ES-10 scanner). Perhaps we could limit all entries to an OM-1
with 50mm f1.8, which would probably be the lowest common denominator of the
list, and have a single person scan all negs/slides at default settings.
Wayne Harridge
Ivanhoe, Victoria, Australia
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Louvre/6152/
< 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 >
|