Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abyss_al
hehe.. no flaming here... just havind a nice arguement/convo...
i still have to disagree... the whole point of a photographer is to capture a momnet, a subect..etc...... and be able to show others what he sees there that others dont.... bringing photoshop into this you are now a graphics guy just adding effects to a shot... and i still prefer film over digital.. the difference between film and digital to me is... people shoot a hundred shots in digital to get a handful of nice shots... they have forgotten how important a shot is and the time needed to make that shot.... with film, you take more time, you measure and calculate and almost everyshot comes out better... youre more conservative and concentrated...
|
Good post, and I would totally agree that a lot of 'photographers' don't take the time needed to make the shot, but saying a photog who uses PS to enhance a shot after the fact is now a 'graphics guy' is a little harsh, IMHO. Some of the old school photogs who've adopted the transition from film to digital and use PS might see it as a way of enhancing their 'art'.
For example:
Had Tom Ruddock not enhanced the images we shot, I doubt I'd be posting them here.
However, I love his vision and his ability to see beyond the 'moment' and very much appreciate that he took the time to share his 'vision' this way. I would hardly call a photog of his caliber just a 'graphics guy', though. Just my lil
Anya