Digital BW, The Print

Hi Richard,

> I think this argument is less about the actual act of "manipulation"
> than about the art and talent inherent to the manipulation or
> enhancing process that was used.
> 
> I belive now that many people are actually quite aware that photographers
> like Adams and Smith were manipulators. However, their techniques
> required an artistry and talent on a completely different plane than
> many are now doing by simply tweaking a few sliders in PS.

I couldn't have said that better my self.
 
> I have no problem with manipulating or enhancing an image in PS. I
> just think photographers should be EXPLICITLY up front about what, if
> any, PS tools and techniques may have been used. The biggest problem I
> see, and the most dishonorable trend I see, is where photographers are
> using PS to create tonal ranges and/or hue adjustments, then say
> nothing in their image description. This "silence" tends to
> purposefully create an "aura" and tends to completely imply that the
> photographer, through talented field techniques and camera skill,
> captured that once in a lifetime light when in reality, while they may
> have captured a very good image, they absolutely needed PS to make it
> over the top.

And I certainly agree with that!
 
> Some say we should all use our "artistic license" to make our images
> the best they can be. Artistic license is one thing, but the more
> one's artistic license depends on mouse movements in a computer the
> less merit there is to the art.

Possibly, but not always...

Regards,

Austin