You known, you may have your views on what kind of work flow you
prefer, but don´t generalize them into rules for what is photography
and what isn´t. Jerry Uelsmann (www.uelsmann.com) has done this in the
darkroom for ages, Bruce Barnbaum has done the same, but the technique
is as old as photography itself the differences is technology, nothing
else.
If you want good precision the wet way requires two enlargers, but that
costs less the the full version of Photoshop. It takes some time, but
so does PhotoShop. It smells, photoshop doesn´t. You need a dark
room, but photoshop needs a computer. And most important: you need an
idea before you start, and the process is just the way to get there.
You prefer another stile in photography (and actually, I prefer the
same work flow), but that doesn´t mean that the others aren´t
photographers.
DagT
PhotoShop has nothing to do with it, this kind of things has been done
for ages
På 17. jun. 2005 kl. 16.10 skrev Shel Belinkoff:
IMO, this type of article is a blasphemous shame, and is one of the
things
that's destroying photography and making it more about "image
processing"
than seeing and creating in the viewfinder. Now, just to be clear,
there's
nothing wrong with heavily manipulating an image, and making it into
something other than a straight photo, but I don't really call that
photography. I've done it myself, but I don't consider the results to
be a
photograph, and I usually make the photo with thoughts of using it as a
basis for something else.
