if i have a piece of trash in one of my compositions where i can't remove it
by walking up to it and taking it away, i have no hesitation to using
Photoshop to remove it. i have a couple of panoramas where i captured a
flying insect in the FOV at a noticeable and annoying place that i didn't
discover until later. it's gone in Photoshop. photography isn't about
capturing reality, it's about presenting an artistic vision. if that vision
is supposed to be documentary, then it shouldn't be manipulated much. if
it's fine art, it doesn't matter what you do. as far as i am concerned, Shel
is defining photography to be what he does and anything else isn't.
Herb...
----- Original Message -----
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: How to make Good Pictures (Let's Free the Captured Images)
We've all seen Charles Brazwell's unique nature photos. Some of his
photos of flowers and leaves have a backdrop placed behind them. So,
let's say that I, as a hypothetical nature photographer, see a pretty
flower and take some photos of it. I forgot my backdrop at home, so
when I download the image into PS, I remove the ugly green and brown
background, and replace it with a nice, velvety, red background. I'm
quite pleased that I've now acheived a "Brazwellian" effect which has
now improved my photo.
