Went to a Bill Brandt exhibit recently and noted that on one print, a
seagull had been painted IN. I assumed that it was a piece of extensive
retouching at a level that was common when I were a lad. Why do we get
our knickers twisted over doing things digitally that once were done
with a paintbrush - because it's easier and the results are better?
If it's good enough for Bill, don't just leave it in - enhance it!
Andrewf
On 12/09/2004, at 12:39 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Wayne
> I should leave it in. It looks like a seagull to me; I clone out birds
> when the appearance is too close to dirt, scratches or hairs. but that
> one looks good to me.
> Chris
>
> On 11 Sep 2004, at 9:32, Wayne Harridge wrote:
>> Dear Zs,
>> Could you please have a look at this image and give me some advice:
>> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/images/cn35-847-14-a.jpg
>> On the left hand side in the sky area there is a "mark" which looks
>> like a scratch or lint on the neg, in fact it is a seagull though you
>> can't
>> tell at this resolution.
>> Should things like this be "cloned out" or left in ?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
