On 3/8/05 4:49 PM, "Djon" sent the following verbage:
>
>
> Carolyn, you needn't be so defensive.
I wasn't being defensive John.
>
> You asserted a real interest in images. You actually spoke of "the
> look of the prints." That's heartening and it's unusual on digital
> forums.
> Very few posts on this or other digital photo forums talk about
> images, they talk about gizmos, acquisition, technical distress and
> confusion. Browse the posts: you may or may not agree, it's not
> important. Your deep roots in digital technology are a huge advantage
> for you.
I've been on the lists for longer than I care to remember, I understand what
you mean. But don't understand what it has to do with upgrading PS.
>
> Other fine photographers find digital technology alienating, pure
> trouble. That's one reason I think it's important sometimes to
> deemphasize the gizmo focus: Many the best film shooters have chosen
> to avoid digital weirdness and simply stick with the analog technology
> they rode to success. There are plenty of analogies in music.
I use many methods, not all digital, and not all traditional. One reason I
love my pinholes, my holgas, the non gizmo focus for me is on the capture
end usually. But I don't consider a PS upgrade a 'gizmo', I thought that was
the point of this thread. For me, it allows me to get all I want and all
that my neg's, paper or film, have to offer. This wasn't about taking the
digital plunge, it was about upgrading while inside of it.
>
> To my way of thinking, photography (and music) has to do with
> instants, real time. Printmaking, like recording, has to do with
> labors after the fact. They may be equal, but it's uncommon for great
> photography, like great music, to involve great labors after that
> decisive moment. Just for a moment, think about the type of music that
> involves the latest technology and the most post processing.
Not sure what this has to do with upgrading John.. But you have basically
squashed most of my personal body of work. I'm going to go back to the
topic of this thread, upgrading Photoshop. It helps my images, it helps my
clients images, so therefore I recommend it. If someone is scanning neg's or
prints, or bringing in a digital file, and want to get the most from what
they have brought in, then the capabilities in PSCS are worth the upgrade.
In my opinion. It was a simple recommendation. I am however still pondering
"real" photography... I'm thinking, mine must be "fake". Cool.
And for the record, in my opinion, the final look and feel of say, a gum
bichromate, is certainly very much part of the 'post processing' involved,
and not only focused on the 'decisive moment', they work together... That
wasn't defensive either, just an opinion, like yours.
Carolyn