Hello Whilst accepting that different people like different things in an image (obvious, but I think it sometimes needs repeating :-)) I quote >So the grain was part of the photo from the start - >it's been there, done that, paid its dues, it has a >raison d'etre, it's a founding father. > >The point is that the dots are merely an artifact of the >algorithm used by the driver - they have no organic connection >to the original photo. they're interlopers, party crashers, >- THAT'S why they stand out. Your eye tells you that somehow, >they don't belong there; they have no intrinsic relationship >to the original photo. Could I not equally say >So the smoothness was part of the subject from the start - >it's been there, done that, paid its dues, it has a >raison d'etre, it's a founding father. > >The point is that the grain is merely an artefact of the >chemistry of the film - it has no organic connection >to the original subject. The grains are interlopers, party crashers, >- THAT'S why they stand out. Your eye tells you that somehow, >they don't belong there; they have no intrinsic relationship >to the original subject. Sometimes I like grain, sometimes not. Dots can be good too! bye for now Keith Cooper Northlight Images http://northlight-images.co.uk Photography - Digital Imaging - Apple Mac Consultancy Tel +44 (0)116 291 9092 Mobile +44 (0)780 162 9397
Message
Dots and grain
2003-02-13 by Keith Cooper
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.