Well I certainly am not against tech chat. There is always a new technique to learn. You must have some knowledge of the craft to be able to take the next step to the art of photography. It's all about balance. If you don't know the latest and greatest technique, your vision can be limited because you can not consider how you can use what you don't know. Once you do, the ways and times you apply the knowledge is what creates the art. --- On Wed, 7/23/08, editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: How many techniques? > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 7:32 PM > Good point. If we limit the discussion to visioning > techniques rather than "technical" techniques > (like how I used such-and-such filter in PS to do x) then > I'm for it. > > Perhaps some proposals? > > How about: > > - Looking for contrast light > - Anticipating soft light > - Capturing the moment > - Getting a model to relax (with before/after comparison) > (For just four examples) > > This way, people can contribute to the forum on a thematic > basis yet not have to go into great detail > > Just a thought. > > Michael. > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:55:27 > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - > Students<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: How many techniques? > > > Michael, I don't think you read this question > thoroughly. The > "techniques" involved had much to do with the > vision of the artist. > There was no question about shutter speed, f-stop, > equipment etc. It > all had to do with the ultimate image and the complexities > of achieving > it. I think that is within the purview of your interests. > Don > > editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > In general, I find discussion re: > "technique" to be tedious and > > ultimately unimportant. > > What *IS* important is the photographer's vision. > I'd much rather hear > > about that. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Gregory [mailto:fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > *Sent:* Saturday, July 19, 2008 09:43 PM > > *To:* 'List for Photo/Imaging Educators - > Professionals - Students' > > *Subject:* How many techniques? > > > > I'm curious if anyone would think it an > interesting theme for a > > future gallery to offer up images that hold the > highest number of > > techniques such as levels, filters, layers, masks, > etc.? For me, I > > think the most "techniques" in photoshop > I have used is about 4. > > This could translate I guess to either an image > almost excellent > > from the start, but more likely a less than > profound > > imagination._grin Take care out there, Gregory > > www.fireframeimaging.com > www.ebbtidegalleryofgifts.com > > http://soundexposure.org > >
