Digital BW, The Print

Roger,

Lord I hoped I had made clear during my discussions with Austin that I
was not talking about scientific or photojournalism. I wouldn't change
them. I was just talking about fine art photography. Remember the time
National Geographic moved the pyramids to get a more pleasing photo? I
thought that was most interesting. On one hand, it improved the
composition, and I loved it. It is fine for fine art. But if you were
showing a scientific record, they shouldn't have touched it.  People
will argue about this image til the cows come home. Since it wasn't
really trying to anything other than make a more pleasing composition, I
say its fine. On the other hand, when Time magazine changed the image of
OJ to make him more sinister looking, that was absolutely wrong. 

jerry



rlsopher wrote:
> 
> 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@...
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/