Digital BW, The Print

Come on guys, this has devolved to the level of arguing over how 
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It should be no secret 
that the image is in the eye of the artist. Gaugan and VanGogh 
painted side by side in a number of locations and the result was 
what each man saw. Neither one was "right."

In technical photography manipulating the image is generally 
considered to be a no no; it rather is supposed to be an accurate 
depiction of the thing, event or what have you with little room for 
subjective influence. When I included a photograph in a journal 
article it would have been consided unconscionable manipulation of 
the data to have tweaked it unless it was made plain just what had 
been done and why. From reading a lot of Austin's postings it seems 
to me this is his approach, which, by the way, is entirely valid.

On the other hand fine art photography (what ever that is...),to my 
view, requires the involvement of the photographer/printer 
to produce the image that was previsualized at the time the film was 
exposed. AA likened the negative to a musical score that required 
interpretation to become the thing (the print) he saw when he 
captured the image.

Only the means of interpreting the final image changes from the wet 
dark room to the digital. 

Rant over,

Roger
rlsopher@...