On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:56 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > I may have overstated my position somewhat, but I personally find > endless tweaking on the computer irritating and circuitous. My > "photography" style ends as it did when shot film... once the > shutter is > pressed. All of the technical (lens choice, aperture, shutter > speed, etc) > and photographic (subject selection, composition, lighting, etc) > choices > have been made once the shutter is depressed. After that point > with film, > I never did anything more than send it off to the lab. With > digital, I do > the roughly the same.... "develop" the digital RAW image in the most > accurate, lossless, and "tweak-free" way. Maximizing dynamic > range, color > accuracy, and quantization errors is pretty much my limit.
Unfortunately, just because you didn't do it, your style of photography didn't stop the 'endless tweaking' at the moment of shutter release. You simply left the tweaking to someone else to do ... someone who balanced the processing chemistry, ran the machines, adjusted each frame's color and density on the printer, processed the media, etc. A substantial amount of image processing was done to every print you obtained, whether automatically or by a human being. I do not do endless tweaking on the computer. Nor did I do endless tweaking in the darkroom. I apply my eyes to my intent with any given exposure and processed/process it to meet that goal. Most exposures of average subject matter (we're talking color and tonality here, not content) process from RAW to finished print using automation. Particular attention happens when it is 'difficult' ... out of the ordinary realm of automation to manage and achieve the goals I had in mind ... exposure. Knowing when to stop is the challenge, and that's one of the things that make one a photographer rather than a technician just dialing up numbers on a machine. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
