Digital BW, The Print

Keith,

You hit the nail on the head. It is just not digital - how many people 
have painted a "cow head" because they wanted to be Georgia O'Keeffe or 
took landscapes because they wanted to be Adams or set up a still life 
of vegetables because they wanted to be the next Weston. They produced 
the "Velvet Elvis" - some may have won local photography contest and may 
have been pleasing to look at - but they would not stand the test of time.

Digital manipulation makes it even easier to pretend you are the next 
Weston, Adams, Cartier-Bresson, etc. when only they have found a faster 
way to produce the Velvet Elvis.

Truman



Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>>    
>>
>I won't disagree there, understanding the tools of any art..  Their 
>advantages and disadvantages is imperative to creating well with that 
>tool.  Again that takes us back to creating great imagery in-camera 
>first.. (and for me that "in camera" rule would include stuff like Sky's 
>where much of what might be traditionally shot "in-camera" is actually 
>created in Bryce or Poser, etc..)  For me, the real bottom line is this, 
>if technique obscures, rather than enhances an image, or becomes THE 
>point of the art, it'll be here today and gone tomorrow.  Even if it 
>becomes truly popular in mass culture, and a moneymaker, others will 
>copy it and reproduce the effect  at lesser skill levels and the 
>technique will become hopelessly bourgeois.  "Elvis on Velvet"  (not 
>that painting on velvet was ever a great technique) But, need I say more?
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]