How can Cotty, Mr. Digiman himself be an anti digital snob, that's my
question.
Glen wrote:
At 06:43 PM 10/21/2005, Cotty wrote:
On 21/10/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/fallenleaf.html
>
>Saw it, snapped it, Photoshopped it ....
>
>I'm in the digital doldrums ...
These types of pics do nothing for me.
I've never even tried doing one - it's never interested me, and
certainly
not just because I got a digital camera.
That's not to say that people shouldn't go ahead and experiment with
digital, especially as it effectively costs nothing to shoot the pixels.
Okay, this is starting to confuse me slightly. What is so "digital"
about the essence of this image? This could have actually been shot on
film for all I know. (That is, if Shel hadn't told us otherwise.)
I like the composition. I like the colors. I don't find any fault with
this image at all.
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? 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. 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? 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.
Shel, I like your latest image, even if you and Cotty don't. ;)
take care,
Glen
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
