Well, Christian, you seem not to have read my original post very well. Twi\ce I made it very clear that I have no objection to it, and use, and have used, the techniques discussed, and similar techniques. The question posed in my post, which many seem to have missed, asserting that this has been done one way or another in the past, or that it's OK, is that at what time does manipulation in Photoshop take over and become the process rather than photography being the process? Are heavily manipulated images Photographs?
And, if you've taken the time to look at the photos I've posted here, or to review my body of work over the last 30 years, you'd have seen a lot more than conventional or straight photographs. Yes, I am somewhat of a purist, but I suspect that my definition and yours may be at odds with each other. Shel > Christian wrote: > > >Really what Shel and E. are saying is that they don't like this FORM of > >photography; purists that they are.
