Digital BW, The Print

I am simply stating that it IS NOT the be all and end all . . . as seems to be presumed by some here. Naive? That is a stupid comment if ever there was one. I merely pointed out an attribute of a thinking creative process that is used by most photographers. That of having a previsualisation of what it is they want from the image. If I am naive, I am sorry but you will have to include Adams, Penn, Strand, Weston, Newton, Bourdin, and thousands of others in the commercial and "art" world who actually knew what they were looking for before they pushed the button. No doubt any one of them would be a formidible mind behind some photoshopping . . . but it would have been part of the original process, that of having and idea and knowing the technique to fulfill that idea . . . something hacks are unable to contemplate.

Paul Aparycki

p.s. as to fuddieduddies, take a look at the work of someone (like the aging old fart he is) of Rysard Horowitz. There isn't a single "new school" idiot who could even begin to approach his understanding of photoshop and the photographic image . . . those come with experience . . . something you might attain some day . . . if you have the intelligence

  Clearly naïve. Creativity doesn't end at the click of the shutter.  There is
  nothing wrong with retaining the flexibility for additional creative thought
  at a later date.  Have you never cropped an image, burned an image or dodged
  in the darkroom or digital domain?  Hacking has nothing to do with it.
  Taking advantage of the additional creative flexibility provided by a new
  medium does.... I implore all photographers to experiment both before and
  after the shutter is released.  Some old fuddy duddies seem to still be
  stuck within the restrictive bounds of the film, shutter (slow or fast),
  lens and a few old filters...


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