And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for
them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is
fair play.
I use both processes, neither is better or cheaper or easier than the
other. However, I am sure that to someone who does not have both skills
the one they do have looks easier to them.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Glen wrote:
I feel very sympathetic to Godfrey on this issue. People who use
Photoshop (or other programs) as yet another creative tool, like a
different camera, or a different lens, often feel somewhat insulted by
such phrases. The insult isn't quite a blunt and literal statement,
but just a subtle implication that using Photoshop is something to be
avoided, especially by serious photographers. This is total nonsense.
Unless it's something like a police forensics image, it's only the
final image that matters. I don't care very much what technique was
used to arrive at that final image when I am judging the relative
merits of the image.
take care,
Glen
At 10:18 AM 11/23/2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
"Fiddling in Photoshop" is such a disparagement. "Fun with a camera"
is a hobbyist point of view.
I do my *work* in Photoshop. That work is the effort required to
render what my 'fun with a camera' has produced into expressive forms
of representation. It's what I used to do with chemistry and an
enlarger. My 'fun with a camera' is just the other part of my
photographic work. I don't 'fiddle in Photoshop' ... I render my
photographs into reality.
