Digital BW, The Print

Seems to me that if a photographer is worried that potential buyers 
may suspect that his/her work is heavily Photoshopped, then the best 
route would be to specify just what kind of "manipulation" has been 
done. I've seen some photographers who work digitally state that 
their manipulations parallel the cropping, burning, dodging, 
contrast/paper choice, bleaching, etc. that can be performed in a 
darkroom, and they have not otherwise added or deleted content. Of 
course, when you get down to it, a lot of wonderful 
manipulations/tricks can be performed in the darkroom, and I don't 
think that historically this has effected a print's collectability, 
at least not on the downside. 

Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak 
<richard@c...> wrote:
> Thursday, September 19, 2002, 8:51:08 AM, Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> JO> Too bad they think the technique by which the picture is made 
is more important
> JO> to them than the work itself.  I rarely do straight photography 
anymore,
> JO> as I can be much more creative when using photoshop; I couldn't 
care
> JO> less if a person wouldn't buy a print because it was in 
photoshop before
> JO> being printed.
> 
> JO> Jerry
> 
> 
> Jerry, that's all well and good. But as much of the impression of 
what
> it means to make a photograph changes, then often how that 
photograph
> was made is also important. I think the point is that as many
> photographers do what you are doing (and I do too to a varying 
extent)
> then many people, for whatever reason, often start to think of it 
more
> as computer graphic art, than photography. Maybe their understanding
> of what it manes to be a photographer these days needs updating and
> changing? Or maybe many photographers are more becoming computer
> graphic artists? Maybe the definition between the two is becoming 
more
> nebulous and vague?
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...