Digital BW, The Print

In the 70's (they still be around for all I know) there was a school 
that believed that if you even cropped an image you were some how a 
charlatan. This school of photographers would actually file out the 
enlarger file holders so a black uneven border would appear around their 
prints so that you would know they had not cropped. The were all 
disciples of Henri Cartier-Bression (who never went to that extreme). Of 
course to them Ansel Adams and W Eugen Smith were a incarnation of the 
Devil.

This sound like the same old argument. If the image is crap going into 
PS, it's crap coming out. PS provides the artist yet another creative 
tool. Too much PS will ruin the artistic value of a good image and PS 
cannot create a truly great image out of a poorly visualized photograph.

Truman


hogarth1x wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak
> <richard@c...> wrote:
> >
> ...snip
> > 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.
> >
> snip...
>
> Come on, Richard. This sounds like the kind of arguments I used to
> have with my brothers when I was nine. "I've got more talent than
> you've got!" "No you don't, it's just different!"
>
> Can't we rise above this level, just a little bit? Or is it that you
> really think that using Photoshop artistically requires no artistic
> talent?
>
>