Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Manipulation, IMO, takes us out of the realm of photography and into > digital art in some cases. Not necessarily a bad thing, just a > different thing. It's a fuzzy line. Stuff routinely done by master printers with contrast masking, and a lot of the stuff you could do in dye-transfer printing, was unavaible to the rest of us. I mean, in theory I *could* have started learning to do dye-transfer printing in the 1970s and eventually gotten real good at it, but I didn't. However, I can now do those things quite easily in Photoshop. Most of what I do to a photo I don't think of as "manipulation" in the class that takes me away from photography. Retouching portraits has been standard forever. My moving the man at the left of my gallery photo last week was very unusual for me. > At a camera club meeting we had a photo editor from the local > newspaper as a speaker. During the Q&A session this was brought up. > She told us of a photo of a military pilot taken at the annual air > show by one of her PJs. His refection was in the pilot's visor. He > said he could remove it with Photoshop. She explained that she > wanted a photo not a digital image. He went back and reshot the > story. Would anyone that read the article know, or care? Probably > not, but she was the boss. The only really big advantage to digital > photography, IMO, is you don't get into arguments going through > security checkpoints at the airport. I have a roll of Kodak 3200 > B&W film that has never been exposed but often used. Bob That's a hard question. Although in my case, I find removing a reflection one of the hardest things to do. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
