When I worked in industrial advertising in the late 1960's,
photo-retouching was a major expense. No print or reproduction of a
piece of machinery was displayed or published without extensive
reworking, ranging from a simple friskit and sprayout of the background
to a serious paint job. Machine panels were airbrushed and the details
of machine parts painted in or highlighted if not clearly visible. This
was unremarkable and even expected, despite the fact that we employed a
good photographer who used large format gear - 4x5. The larger neg.
made some retouching of the neg. easier, especially dust spotting. The
same went for fashin shots, wedding pix and then of course there was
hand-colouring!
When I visited a Bill Brandt exhibition recently, I saw that several of
the prints had been touched up in some way - one early one had a flying
seagull brushed in using Process White, probably because it was
indistinct in the straight print and was an important component of the
image.
We're painting with light, OK. Get over it. If it's good enough for
Bill......
AndrewF
On 10/02/2005, at 5:21 AM, Alienspecimen wrote:
> You did good, welcome to the dark side...:)
> And if your conciousness bothers you, pour it some beer and wait a
> little until it starts oinking like a pig in a mud puddle. I
> recommend Geary's or any of the beers from Wachusett brewery.
> Boris
> P.S. There is evidence that such heresy as removing ugly telephone
> posts, street signs, faces etc. from pictures existed as early as
> 1910.
> Unfortunately, no one bothered to record the shaman's/witches rituals
> and accessories, so we could figure out how the magic worked...
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|