Why is a paintbrush the first tool to try when we are talking about photographs not painting here? Are you one of those photo purists that cannot stand a photo being turned into something other then a photograph? Not being defensive just trying to understand your perspective... "it just looked like amateurish PhotoShoppery"... IT? There is more then one there. There are only 3 which have been enhanced, the others are all straight photos. Seems to me you quickly dismissed them if you think they have all been "treated". I'm discovering, and I'm not saying you since I don't know your background, that most photographers who know nothing about photoshop and digital art are the purists who seem to reject it outright for not being a conventional photo. As if it is heresy to make a photo look anything other than a photo. Dean -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Talbot Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 1:05 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: PF Galleries on 15 JAN 05 > What about mine? I'm told by the powers that be that most overlook the > series gallery... Seems to be true. > http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/cgi-bin/gallery-x/index.html Dean I do try to comment on the main gallery most weeks but Gallery X does indeed get missed. Since you ask though, I wouldn't normally comment unless I really liked what I was shown, I din't like the treatment at all. Sorry, it just looked like amateurish PhotoShoppery and for me had probably spoiled what could have been a good set of pictures. I read what you said about rendering them unidentifiable, but actually I was left thinking: if you want a painterly effect then a paintbrush is the first tool to try :) Sorry, but you asked. Bob
