Digital BW, The Print

Austin,

Usually I'm in agreement with your postings (though I did become a bit lost
eventually over Dynamic Range!!)

> I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> reproduction of a scene.
>

However, I must disagree with you here. SOME photography is about accurate
representation of a scene. MUCH traditional photography is about reproducing
the photographer's IMPRESSION of the scene. From my little knowledge I think
this applies just as much to the accepted old masters of photography, as to
today's 'computer whiz-kids' (in which camp you would probably put me, even
though I've been using computers for 20 years or so and most of my Epson
prints are of images taken up to 40 years ago on Kodachrome 25 and only
recently scanned on an LS4000.)

You are clearly in the camp of those who regard photography as a scientific
recording medium. Some painters in the past probably regarded themselves in
the same light. Many, it seems, used optical methods to ensure accuracy in
the outlines and perspectives of their images. Others, however, saw painting
as a way of expressing emotions, and many modern-day photographers use the
medium as a way of getting the outlines on 'canvas', but then use Photoshop
to express their feelings about the scene, rather than play about in the
darkroom as their predecessors had done to achieve the same ends.

Both are surely perfectly valid uses of the camera. Many painters seem to
take photographs of their scenes and then paint at home from those
photographs. Does this make those paintings invalid?

Life is all about VARIATION (and the survival of the fittest).

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> reproduction of a scene.