Digital BW, The Print

First, the words manipulation or manipulative should not be allowed to be
used. It has a negative connotation to start with. The concept of the
instant a photograph was taken is unreal and inaccurate is beyond my
comprehension. It might be used (the photograph) out of context but that
doesn't make it unreal or simplistic. It still represents a real instance in
time. That fraction of a second never existed?----that's crap. People
manipulate people. If someone can make contact through an image, that is not
manipulation---it's communication. When a poster is used for propaganda
that's manipulation---of the society, not the poster art. Did Mondrian
manipulate? Or any of the other artists who broke the silly barriers of
communicating? The message is the thing and everybody is attacking the
messengers. Too bad. There are photographers who can manipulate their
a----es off and it will still look like crap.

bgs---The ultimate lurker!
From: "Tim Atherton" <tim@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


> > 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
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>