ller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> - Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin"
>
> Subject: Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
>
>
>> On 2011-02-17 23:59, Ken Waller wrote:
>>
>>>> I think the r
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
On 2011-02-17 23:59, Ken Waller wrote:
I think the real meaning of "unmanipulated" is "snapshot
On 2011-02-17 23:59, Ken Waller wrote:
I think the real meaning of "unmanipulated" is "snapshot". JMHO, of
course.
The unmanipulated image is exposed, un processed film or just a bunch of
X's & O's.
For fear of being serious in a joke thread, the only unmanipluated
images are the ones you h
From: Bruce Walker
There's only one very narrowly defined case where the camera is THE
tool. If you glue a flash memory card into a camera with one lens
permanently attached, then take shots in available light which you only
ever view on the 3" LCD on the back -- then yes, that's your only tool.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
>
>> The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox.
>
> I think that deserves a "MARK!", even though I kind of disagree with you.
>
> Surely the camera is more than "jus
From: Steven Desjardins
"Still, that was a great quote, John. ?Very pithy. ?I like pith."
I dunno. I'm kind of pithed off.
Better than being pithed on.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
The camera is just one
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Steven Desjardins"
Subject: Re: OT: The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image
I think the real meaning of "unmanipulated" is "snapshot". JMHO, of
course.
The unma
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> I first liked the "one tool" quote. Then thought Frank had a point.
> Then realized that that both are correct.
I'm feeling like I'm in an old Wrigley's gum commercial...
;-)
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henr
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>
>> I think the real meaning of "unmanipulated" is "snapshot". JMHO, of course.
>>
>
> There's no such thing as an unmanimpulated photo, but there sure as hell are
> overmanipulated ph
On 11-02-17 4:11 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox.
I think that deserves a "MARK!", even though I kind of disagree with you.
I agree with John. There's no real photography, as a pursuit
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
>
>> The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox.
>
> I think that deserves a "MARK!", even though I kind of disagree with you.
>
> Surely the camera is more than "just on
"Still, that was a great quote, John. Very pithy. I like pith."
I dunno. I'm kind of pithed off.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
>
>> The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox.
>
> I think that de
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
> The camera is just one tool in the photographer's toolbox.
I think that deserves a "MARK!", even though I kind of disagree with you.
Surely the camera is more than "just one tool" in our toolbox. It's
~the~ tool, isn't it? Without it the
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> I think the real meaning of "unmanipulated" is "snapshot". JMHO, of course.
>
There's no such thing as an unmanimpulated photo, but there sure as hell are
overmanipulated photos.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
I think the real meaning of "unmanipulated" is "snapshot". JMHO, of course.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: Igor Roshchin
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
>>>
>>> > Good article:
>>> > http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.h
From: Igor Roshchin
On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> Good article:
> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
>
I like that article.
For those people who "like to see what an image looks like straight out
[of] the camera", just think for a moment how you
From: Bruce Walker
On 11-02-16 3:52 PM, Christian wrote:
> On 2/16/2011 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
>> Good article:
>> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
He expresses that rather well.
>
> Most of the comments are ridiculous and miss the point of the article.
>
I like it too... I notice the author is on smugmug , as am I :-)
This line particularly struck me as apt (after the author , who shoots
in RAW, explains what he did in lightroom)
" I didn't add anything to the photograph that wasn't already there. I
simply brought out what the camera captured
The man's right.
I think that this whole issue stems from the more general concept. Often
we would confuse our personal perception of something with its general
counterpart. As a consequence, we would project our own perception and,
in this very case, call an image "true to life" whereas the n
On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> Good article:
> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
>
I like that article.
For those people who "like to see what an image looks like straight out
[of] the camera", just think for a moment how you are going to see it
A well written article and lucid explanation of a truth that makes so many
photographers irrationally uncomfortable.
Paul
On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
> Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDM
On 11-02-16 3:52 PM, Christian wrote:
On 2/16/2011 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
Good article:
http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
He expresses that rather well.
Most of the comments are ridiculous and miss the point of the article.
No surprise there...
The S
On 2/16/2011 3:34 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
Most of the comments are ridiculous and miss the point of the article.
No surprise there...
--
Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com
http://birdofthemoment.blogsp
Good article: http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
24 matches
Mail list logo
