Digital BW, The Print

Hi Keith,

> >>Or are we quickly becoming graphic artists?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes, that's my feeling too.
> >
> >
>
> Does that mean it's in any way negative?

Of course not, but it's calling a spade a spade.

> >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...
> >
>
> Well said...

Why, thank you!  Happens every now and then ;-)

> Drawing static lines in the sand won't work..

Agreed.

> I think the key is to sort crap from good/effective art...  Again we
> will come back to whether the tool, technique, style, etc, supports the
> message or detracts from it..

And I believe that's probably true too.

Regards,

Austin