Digital BW, The Print

> > You missed the point.  It's a fact that a LOT of photography is about
> > accurate reproduction of a scene.  What you took a picture of,
> is what you
> > took a picture of, plain and simple, in and of the image it
> self.  What it
> > represents is something possibly different, but it's at least
> accurate to
> > what the eye saw.  We're not talking about crime scene photography here,
> > which is not related, in my opinion, to this discussion.
>
> Austin,
>
> the point is that photography can never accurately reproduce a
> scene (at the
> most banal level, all photographs arrest the flow of time, extracting a
> fraction of a second - a fraction far to short for the eye to
> register - and
> so the instant the photograph is taken, it becomes unreal and
> inaccurate - a
> construct). The photograph you produce is merely an attempt to represent
> what you, the photographer, saw. To insist it is (or can be) an
> accurate (or
> true) reproduction is simplistic at best and certainly inaccurate.
>
> And to bring it back to the Photoshop question, the adjustments or
> manipulations made in PS or the darkroom are so far down the line in this
> process and so crude as to have little important bearing on the truth or
> otherwise of the image.
>
>
> Tim

Well, Tim, I understand what you're saying, and still believe you're a
sandwich short of a picnic, and entirely missing the point ;-)

Regards,

Austin