Digital BW, The Print

Hi Gus,

I must admit, it is less of a photograph to me if it's seen heavy PS
manipulation.  It moves from photograph to graphics art in my book...of
course, where to draw the line is quite unknown, at least for me.  Now, I
didn't say it makes it less art, mind you, as both certainly can be on equal
footing as far as art goes.

One thing to keep in mind, is manipulation in PS is FAR FAR FAR much easier
than doing so in a "normal" darkroom, and as such, people tend to do it more
so.  That's why I'd ask if has something been "PS'd" far more than if it had
been "DR'd".

Regards,

Austin

> I accept your take on it. I understand it as something some people like
> others don't. I just get irked when I hear comments making a photograph
> less than "something" because Photoshop was involved one way or the
> other. I can't understand any kind of censorship on an art form. If you
> are reporting reality that's another story but certainly not the case
> here.
>
> I've been intrigued by David's work for a while. I first saw his work
> not too long ago (a couple of months) and found interesting that all of
> the sudden it showed up here.
>
> It looks as if coming from a Hasseblad Xpan and Kodak Techpan but it
> could be any number of different systems. I've done a few "panoramas"
> like that using a simple Fuji GX680III and cropping. I would use a 617
> but it's not easy to get those negatives scanned.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
>
> Gus,
>
> It's as relevant as someone wants to make it.  What's relevant to you or
> irrelevant to you may be very important or completely unimportant to
> someone
> else.  It's someone's own business what's important/not important to
> them.
>
> Why I asked, is because the small images looked very un-natural to me,
> so I
> wondered if they had been manipulated.  The larger images are much more
> natural looking to me.  I know that I'm not a fan of very unnatural
> looking
> images, whether they are massively manipulated images or not.  That's my
> personal taste, and certainly doesn't have to be anyone else's.
>
> Austin
>
> > No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs.
> It
> > has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
> > Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop?
> Would
> > that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you
> ever
> > heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
> > as your question.
> >
> > g
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> > > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> > > Steve M.