I've been working on my editing the last few days, I really have a lot to learn and the possibilities are seemingly endless.
It brought to the forefront of my mind the old editing vs pure photography argument. I've no wish to start a row here or anywhere else (although a good debate is always welcome). I was thinking back to school days ( a long time ago) in the darkroom, we'd play with exposures etc. So what's the difference, sure we have mighty tools at our disposal these days but manipulation is manipulation. For instance what's the difference whether I put a filter on the lens or adjust during processing?
So that brings me to this, an old shot that I was playing around with. The original was nothing, I've look at it a thousand times, it was boring. It still may be a mediocre shot but it's far more interesting for the editing and now I like to look at it.
Let me hear your thoughts on this and the whole editing debate too if you wish.
Oh yeah the 40D arrived today, can't wait to get out with it :O)
CM2008
Posts
1 comments:
Don't get me started!!!. But my stance is this. whilst there is a claim for the purest argument over the camera being the eye on the world, and that post processing is the devil. I beleive an image is an image no matter what end was used to achieve it. Because of the totally subjective view that photograph gives, if an image stands up on its own, then how you got there shouldnt matter. That said, there is a place for post processing, and I dont think it should be used to the extent it is to provide our kids with an unrealistic view of the world that we have today. csj
Post a Comment