Digital BW, The Print

Hi Richard,

> AF> I think most people can tell when a filter has been used...
> One issue I
> AF> have with PS manipulation, is believing what I'm seeing.
> With a simple
> AF> filter, I know that it's merely a tonal shift...with PS, the
> envelope is
> AF> wide open.
>
>
> The issue is, is this good or bad for photography?

For me, that isn't an issue...

> Or are we quickly becoming graphic artists?

Yes, that's my feeling too.

> I am amazed at how quickly people want to polarize this issue instead
> of discussing and debating the middle ground in a respectful and
> meaningful way. I am immediately accused of being ignorant, fearful,
> lazy, scared, old-fashioned and full of sh**.

Hey, welcome to the club ;-)

> But the speed at which this
> conversation became rude and condescending is troubling. Are people
> really more comfortable trying to discount my opinions and want to
> believe I'm nothing but an uneducated PS user who yearns for the past?
> Why? What comfort does this provide people?

Well, I think there's an interesting defensiveness that can take place on
both sides. People who have discovered PS and use it don't want to be told
they aren't photographers....which may or may not be the case, IMO.  I am a
purist.  I like to get my exposure dead on, my composition perfect etc.  I
like the negative to BE the image, not something I manipulated in PS.  What
I CAN use PS for is to help an image that I didn't get right.  For me, it's
the extensive creation of images using PS that I'm not a fan of.  That doesn
't mean I don't like some of the images, but I take them for what they are,
as you say, graphics art...not photography.  There is a nebulous line right
now with respect to that.  I certainly don't know how to quantify the line,
but I do know when I see an image that looks PS'd and one that doesn't.  I'm
sure I get some wrong every now and then...

Austin