ah, you repliednon of this makes sense now
however, i never intended to be productive when i expressed my opinion and i'm sure most photographers wouldn't give two hoots what i thought about post production.
my opinion is, for clarification, photography: pics developed as the pic was taken.
pic manipulation is not photography
(however, i never intended to be productive when i expressed my opinion and i'm sure most photographers wouldn't give two hoots what i thought about post production.
my opinion is, for clarification, photography: pics developed as the pic was taken.
pic manipulation is not photography
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sun 15 May 2011, 10:51,
archived)
the keyword there is "developed"....the darkroom developing process will always affect the final image to some degree (colour, contrast etc) with the developer manipulating these factors in order to produce the developers desired result.
doing it in photoshop is no different in that respect.
(,
Sun 15 May 2011, 11:14,
archived)
doing it in photoshop is no different in that respect.
only to a certain degree thoughmy point is art is art, whatever it is, including phtography.
photgraphy is a photograph. if it has to be edited with a computer it's simply no longer a photograph
(photgraphy is a photograph. if it has to be edited with a computer it's simply no longer a photograph
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sun 15 May 2011, 11:22,
archived)