Digital BW, The Print

Gus,

> I'm sorry but this feels more like a reactionary stance on a new
> methodology for which you have no experience.

Er, I've been using PS, and even it's predecessor, plus programs out before
PS, like Digital Darkroom....for, what would that be...15 years?  I've got a
LOT of PS experience.  I'm no expert at it...but I do know how to use it,
and know what it can do.

> I see Photoshop as a tool
> no different than controlling the exposure and the timing and
> temperature of my developer in order to control contrast.

Not really.  It IS a tool, but a tool that allows you to MAKE things that
didn't exist before.  You can't do that with exposure and development.

> People invest great amounts of time perfecting a methodology and feel
> threatened by new methods (as if that made them obsolete). Instead of
> trying to understand it, the reaction typically involves attacking it as
> to make it less than what they know and are comfortable with.

Well, in my case, I know that simply is not the case.  I just don't like
manipulated images, period, for what I consider "art" photography.  There is
a point when manipulated photographs are more manipulation than photograph.
Nothing wrong with that, mind you...as it has it's place.

> This is by
> no means isolated to this subject. It happens whenever a new methodology
> is presented to replace or augment an older one. Pick any field and you
> will find exact copies of these sentiments. Heck, how many people feel
> that digital printing isn't "real" photography?

Well, I personally don't like toned prints.  That's been around a LONG time,
so you can't say that about every case, at least for me.  I agree with you
that is true for some people, but don't blanket it over everyone.

> All in all, it all boils down to fear.

For some...purely taste for others.

> Photography is, and
> has always been a highly technical procedure. Capturing light,
> especially monochromatic light is inherently "artificial" and
> manipulative. Controlling the aperture to define depth of field,
> choosing a lens in order to define perspective compression, choosing a
> film in order to control contrast, grain, etc. These are all
> "manipulations" of reality.

Yes, but they are far more limited than what some people do with PS.

> To try to determine what is "good"
> manipulation and what is "bad" manipulation is just simple censorship.
> As any other kind of censorship, it comes out of fear.

No, no, no.  That's simply silly.  No one is censoring anything, as far as I
can tell.  If I don't like something, it doesn't mean I "fear" it.  I don't
like liver...I don't fear it, I simply don't like what it tastes like.  I
also don't like toned B&W photographs, some I like, but in general, I just
don't like them, I'd rather see the "real" image...now that does't mean I
have some fear of toning...I've played with it, and it's just not my taste.

Austin