What is the 'power of photography'? I thought it was (if I ever thought about it before) the power to convey and communicate through visual images and to evoke a response from the viewer. Not 'using the computer in making an image'.
To say "I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field" contradicts "Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field".
I know what he was trying to say... it was said rather poorly, and I disagree totally with the notion (reading between the lines and contradictions) that being sloppy in the field and fixing it on the computer can constitute 'good' photography (whatever I mean by good). See, I'm leaving myself plenty of wiggle room.
Once again it brings up the issue "Is photogaphy truth?". In my mind, no, it's not the whole truth. It's a rendering. But I would feel somehow guilty if I adopted his attitude. It probably comes from shooting predominantly transparencies.
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:24:04 -0700
The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers:
"What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field — I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all – it's a beginning."
Any comments on this?
Shel
