At 04:41 PM 6/27/2002 -0700, Buddy Walters wrote:
>Walt wrote:
>Digital is just a convenience, like PhotoShop, which, IMO, is mainly a
>crutch for incompetent photographers who couldn't get it right in the
>camera to begin with.:-)
[snip]
>It makes me wonder what Ansel would have thought if he could have
>intensified the foreground to increase contrast, treated the lower
>section with a little un-sharp mask and lighten the area below the
>horizon 12 times to what appeared to be optimum, all with the newest
>tools and equipment of the day. I also wonder if he would have liked
>the idea of printing 2 prints exactly alike after he finally achieved
>that perfect print. Hmmm...?
>
>He probably would have just figured he was one of those:
>?incompetent photographers who couldn't get it right in the camera to
>begin with.?
>
>Just a little food for thought.
Ansel performed the *exact* analogue equivalents of many of the (now-digital)
techniques available in Photoshop. Classic texts on photography and darkroom
manipulation describe some of these techniques in detail -- so much so that the
mavens who created the digital versions were often able to figure out a digital
algorithm to mirror thee analogue process. "Unsharp mask" (one of Photoshop's
more useful and popular filters) is even *named* after one of these analogue
techniques.
Garth
P.S.: Photoshop (and the GIMP on Linux) rocks. Don't knock it until you've
salvaged what you thought was a blown opportunity and subsequently turned it
into a good image. Or in the case of my commercial photography buddy, money in
his jeans and food on the table.
< 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 >
|