has anyone seen that show on the bbc caled "fakin' it"? quite brilliant i think...waiting to see a photography episode myself --- Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Seriously, I think an awful lot of > non-photographers are in fact > very > > much more aware of these issues than perhaps you > realise! > You used the word "awful" ;o) > > Sounds like you are making a sweeping generalisation > ... of the kind > you appear to object to below. > > I can only speak from experience - comparing the > pictures I've been > shown over the years by people who consider > themselves photographers > and people who just own a camera. There is a chasm > between those who > take pictures for taking pictures sake - the love of > the image - and > those for whom the picture is a memento of the > people and places they > love. When they look at a picture they are seeing > the person > (probably) rather than really exmining the image. > > > > I think that's a very sweeping generalisation and > neither fair nor > > accurate. What makes a good photograph can never > be precisely > defined - > You're not saying I said that but on the other hand > it's presence as a > non sequiteur seems to imply I might disagree. I'm > sure that nowhere > in the archives could you ever fiond a post in which > anyone here has > ever said a good photograph can be "precisely > defined". > > > > > if you disagree, tell me how or refer me to some > examples and give > your > > reasons. > After you, list your reasons to the contrary first > ... > > > > > >It's far from academic - in > scientific/astronomical imaging though > I would accept that for pure pictorialism it would > be. > > Which is what I was referring to. > But you didn't say so: you put in another of those > "sweeping > generalisations" <I agree: it is a bogus issue> > without defining what > areas of photography to which it applied. > > > > > > > > And certainly the vast majority of > > photographers do not have access to the sort of > equipment (or do > not > > need?) needed for such technical specialisms. > Err, a digital or film camera? > Well, in digital maybe a camera that allows access > to the raw (really > raw unprocessed responses from the Bayer grid) > > > > > >Take any digital image. > > >Sharpen (/unsharp mask) it. > > >The image contains less information. > > >Simply fact - it's a one-way process > > Only if you don't keep original files surely or > don't use layers! > Only if you have acces to REAL raw files, not the > ones some cameras > produce which have already had a degree of > sharpening applied .... > > > > > Perhaps I'd beter join the great > > unwashed and continue to worry about my image > content and appearance > > rather than what are (for me) theoretical > concerns! > If they don't interest you ... don't worry about > them. > > > Bob > > > > ===== "The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it's true" - J Robert Oppenheimer http://www.geocities.com/tr_cunningham __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
