Agreed. For example, I find it useless in most situations to try to reproduce the exact temperature of the light. For some shots, I want a warm look, for others, something colder. What the finished photographs communicates is the important element. To me, what was really there is insignificant. Paul On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:08 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >> ... I am quite in the minority as a "technical photographer" as >> opposed to an "artsy photographer." Most are the latter and whatever >> looks good is acceptable. I find it difficult to trust my own >> sense of >> quality, so I resort to objective means that I can quantify to >> produce the >> most colorimetrically accurate and least manipulated images >> possible. ... > > That's not photography, that's creating a recording of a subject. You > have to learn to trust your eyes and aesthetics, and develop the > ability to see, to do photography. > > The sunlight streaming through clouds, wandering around the morning > mists, and pooling around a freshly opened leaf knows nothing of > 'accuracy' or colormetrics. You have to feel the color with your eyes > and heart. > > Godfrey > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
