Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
> Moose,
>
> You did it again. Thanks for showing us that there is room to improve
> our photo's in postprocessing.
You are very welcome. It's interesting to me that so many people don't
realize what can be, fairly easily, done. And then there are those who
think it's somehow impure to fiddle with the image once it's come out of
camera or scanner.
And yet, photographers have been making adjustments essentially since
the dawn of sliver based photography, if not before. And it's not just
dodging and burning. Techniques for altering print contrast, split
contrast printing, etc., have existed for decades.
The great art photographers of the last century made all sorts of often
very complex adjustments in the process of printing, including chemical
manipulation of the print after it was made. I've seen a straight print
of Adam's "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM" next to a display print. I assure
you that it would not be a famous, or even well known, photo from the
straight print.
Nothing wrong with getting it as right as reasonably possible first
time. And to my mind, nothing wrong with further correction after the
shot is taken.
Obviously, there are numerous applications in photography, esp.
commercial work of various kinds, where images ready to print right out
of the camera are money right in the pocket. That's not what I'm doing
or interested in. Mostly, it's only possible in situations where the
lighting is controlled. AG does thousands of commercial pics a year that
he doesn't post process individually, but you can bet no display print
of his recent farm implement series would go on the wall looking like
the right out of the camera shots he posted. I recall a recent post of
his talking about something like "jerking the hell out of the curves".
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|