RolandComfort Loc: Saint Louis

Natural art would be, for instance, painting in watercolor using brushes and paint and paper you made yourself, like, say, American Indians 200 years ago. When you buy modern technology you enter a world of endless options provided by other people. You didn't make the lens, or the camera, or the software. As a photographer, your job is to use all of it to create whatever you want. Ansel Adams didn't make his camera himself either. I think he felt just fine about dodging and burning and whatever else he could do to make great pictures. If he had PhotoShop in the day, I think he would use it. Today's art is mastering the ever changing technology. We gave up true art when we quit drawing pictures with chalk on cave walls.

Shutter Bugger

Occasionally I get a shot straight out of the camera
that is exactly what I want.
More than once when that has happened I feel
robbed of the pleasure of adjusting the image
in a photo editing program, and more than once
I have bee compelled to open an image in
an editing program to give it a massage
only to realize that the "Before" is better
than my best efforts at the "After".
Darn D700 is just too good... "Ocassionally".

My image below is a section of our public library;
and of course the place is brightly lit to facilitate
reading; however I wanted something
different, and the editing program
allowed me to create the image I wanted.

The editing programs are just another tool
for us to create what is in our minds eye.

RolandComfort Loc: Saint Louis

I agree! And, I think I would have removed the dot size reflections in the window too.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I like you. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

bersharbp Loc: Texas

Well stated....If it's not a lie...On occasion, even if it's a lie

DonWauchope Loc: Brevard, NC

Interesting discussion on a very old issue. Check out the book "Photography in Print" by Vicki Goldberg. What passions this topic have aroused. My only comment is, I recently thumbed through an issue of "Outdoor Photography" and the pictures were--well, mostly lurid, saturated colors which looked synthetic to me. The occasional magnificent flaming red maple seen on a walk is so striking because its not common; real nature is mostly subtle IMHO.

Shutter Bugger

I have contemplated removing those on a couple of occasions
but decided to let them stay. The image would be a bit sleeker
with them gone... In the immortal words of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe; "less is more"

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

* * * * *
This dialog or controversy, has been chewed to death so many times and will continue to be just as eg. UV filter/none and other examples never cease.
Wellheim ,you and many others, in taking this position re. film,are speaking exclusively for PRINT film people. Ansel Adams even becomes the excuse for PP that Adams would never have considered as he was n his own way a purist who squeezed everything possible from his camera before processing a negative, or after that then printing it. Those steps were necessary for print film. As print film always sold in more volume than color reversal film in order to serve the snapshooter market it is not surprising if there are more people who justify anything post processed even to the point of abandoning reality entirely.

Let's point out that color reversal ("slide") film people were
limited to E6 processing,which meant the original film that went in the camera was the one seen when projected or used for other purposes.No wonder they had to become purists! They were not using a 3-step process from film to negative to transfer to paper.

The debate as to how anyone chooses to produce a photographic image in relation to "film",therefore is entirely useless. However,as with many other photographic issues it will probably never end.

:)

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I like it a lot better with the spots gone. There are four or five other areas where there is glare that I would also touch up.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

"entirely useless?"

RolandComfort Loc: Saint Louis

Ain't technology great! Forgot to say before, with or without dots, that is a wonderful picture. I am really enjoying blogging with you UHH guys and gals.

Shutter Bugger

It would not hurt to remove the small blue parallelogram like reflection.

I like the reflections of the lights that run in a more or less
straight line across the glass.

However feel free to edit the image to your hearts content;
I would be pleased to see others takes on it. :thumbup:

Shutter Bugger

Thanks Roland. That library is very photogenic. It's the best
thing I've seen a local council do.

I took this with my cell phone featuring the reflections

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I like all the colors, so I'd leave the blue parallelogram. It's the glare that I'd remove. They are white/whitish. There are eight of them that I see. The photo has so many wonderful colors that I find the white glare distracting.

Shutter Bugger

Do you mean the reflections of the round coloured lights and the 3 straight fluorescent tubes?