[Disclaimer: not aimed at anyone, or even exclusively the List membership] Jeff Spirer wrote: > Before Photoshop, the time was spent in the darkroom, no different > than today... While I agree largely with this point of view, I offer this: The amount of time spent these days during the post-shoot phase probably equates to the hours staring at a piece of print paper, either under an enlarger or slowly awakening in a tray of Dektol. However, it is the vastly contrasted nature of the two processes which elicited my comments. Back then (not so long ago for some), the editing process involved little more than control over exposure (both general and local), contrast, and cropping; ultimately, the final print was simply a fine-tuned version of the original in-camera image. However, in these Adobe-infused times, where the fine-tuning is executed in a fraction of a second in many cases, photographers are finding themselves spending the remainder of the time otherwise spent in a darkroom recreating the original image over and over. No longer is it a matter of adjusting levels. Now, a single exposure can yield dozens of different variations, complete with entire regions of the image being obliterated or downright fabricated. Yes, I am well aware of Oscar Gustav Rejlander's "The Two Ways of Life", printed in 1857, from some 32 wet collodion negatives. There are exceptions, and there always will be. My original point is that I feel many people are being so distracted by the myriad options they have with any single original image, they are spending too much time finding them all, thus neglecting new ideas and denying the birth of the "Next Great Photograph." As a result, we as a society could be seeing fewer new truly creative works, and more rehashings-with-a-twist of older ones. > I can't imagine anyone telling Avedon to forget about the > hundred local corrections that would go into his prints, > just shoot and send the film over to the lab. I believe Avedon would have cringed at the thought of submitting his work as it was shot. I'm not discounting that. The "local corrections" were done to ensure that his stark white backgrounds were solid white, and that his subjects in black and white were given the respect of exhibiting a full tonal range. At the same time, I believe he would have likewise cringed at the suggestion to add lens flare to the image, or to clone part of a gentleman's arm in the interest of eliminating a wristwatch, or to put an Arizona man and a Texas woman (who had never met) together, joined at the hip, into an image, et cetera. But I digress. My intent was to suggest that the proliferation of the hundreds of filters and plug-ins, designed to streamline the editing process, has actually worked to discourage the photographer from shooting. Darin Heinz Melbourne, Florida USA
