On Mon, February 23, 2009 08:42, Gregory Fraser wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Emily L. Ferguson >>And that, too, is part of the technical decision which might be made > before even releasing the shutter. >>Coming to your RAW converter with the mental image already pretty well > developed is an important >>part of using the RAW converter honestly. > > Please tell me how someone can use the RAW converter 'honestly'? Better > yet, how can I use it dis-honestly? They're both rather value-laden terms, and I suspect any really meaningful discussion would be better served by using less emotional terminology. If I'm making art, and if I'm doing reportage, in both cases I don't want to lie about the real world. Of course, what the real world is is largely a matter of opinion. If I'm recording an event, and one thing that strikes me is the dark grittiness of the venue, then if my photos lighten it up and make everything bright and pretty, I would say that my photos are lying. (I'm jumping past the exact question of how the raw converter contributes to my lie here; I could have done it any of several ways, the issue is the result vs. the reality.) If I'm shooting a studio setup for art, and my vision is of light airy spaces, but I achieve that with dim light and long exposures, then I've achieved my artistic vision. If my vision itself is not a lie, then my photo is not a lie. Even though I may have used exactly the same technique as in the previous example. I suspect you agree with me on the subjectivity, and on the neutrality of the tools. I wouldn't say "using the raw converter dishonestly", because it's not the tool's fault, and I don't know which tool was used from examining the photo generally. I'd say "my photos misrepresented the situation significantly". -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
