Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Using a photographic technique to obtain what one envisions in his mind, is that so wrong? Does everybody see reality the same way, BTW? As long as an image does not mislead (morally f.i.) the viewer, there's nothing wrong with it, IMO. Or is photography a mere reproduction technique? And then how about deciding about under and overexposure, DOF, printing techinques etc? Doesn't that influence "what I'm looking at represents a thing, person, time, and place that actually existed", too. This is one of the most interesting discussions possible about photography ATM. --- > From: Feli <feli2@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:04:29 -0800 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Is that so wrong? > > > On Feb 26, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Kenneth Frazier wrote: >> >> I've noticed that many of the local photo shows I've been to recently >> feature "photo"s(?) that are apparently "graphics" >> images....Photoshopped, or something. One of my artist friends who >> attends with me views them with puzzlement, as do I. >> >> No offense to any of you who prefer the "photo-graphics" approach. >> >> Ken Frazier > > I agree. If a shot has been heavily modified in PS, it should probably > be > labeled as such. I don't think I would still consider it a straight > 'photograph". > Dodging and burning is one thing, but once you go beyond that, it's a > whole > different thing. Didn't they used to call such work a photomontage? > > feli > > > ________________________________________________________ > feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 www.elanphotos.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >