On 21/10/05, Glen, discombobulated, unleashed: >Okay, this is starting to confuse me slightly. What is so "digital" about >the essence of this image?
The fact that it was manipulated to achieve the mono/colour effect. >This could have actually been shot on film for >all I know. (That is, if Shel hadn't told us otherwise.) True. It's still a style that I consider passe. > >I like the composition. I like the colors. I don't find any fault with this >image at all. Fine. > >Are you sure that you aren't engaging in just a wee bit of anti-digital >snobbery, especially since Shel mentioned the use of Photoshop? Me - - anti-digital snob?? LOL >I've >noticed that some people on this list seem to cringe at the mention of that >program. Many of these same people probably admire the works of famous >photographers who made their own meticulously prepared B&W prints. I use PS constantly. I also admire many other photogs, including those mentioned above. >If one >understands the amount of manipulation that often went into much of the >traditional classic B&W printing, how could they look down on Photoshop? Agreed. >That program does the same sorts of tricks that people have done in >darkrooms for many, many years. There really isn't too much that can be >done in Photoshop, which can't be done the old fashioned way. Agreed. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
