| November 19th, 2006 09:42 AM | |  andreyG
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 391 | manipulation
If definition of manipulation is altering the reality by the equipment - all the pictures are manipulated, I think in a category of "cleen" picture we can place some of the pictures of piwholl cameras. As I said before - you have inyour hands a piece of equipment that is smarter then I, that do AF, TTL exposure contral, authomatic white balance control, and defind color gamma, by manufacturer preference, or you hve the film that is oriented to show spetial spectrun and details (compare Fuji, ACFA, codak films, spare professional brands, and different processing) Spare the lenses, that can give you different color balance and all sort of aberrations from color to space disturbances. Adding folters on top make the picture too complecse, spetial technicks as painting by light, delayed exposures etc, in camera solarization - make it too complex. For me all the pictures are form of distortion of reality to present it as you see it, and, more you know you equipment, - more manipulated it is, because you want to show it as you want it. In darkroom epocha - there were categories of trick photography, but no big hiss about manipulation. I see no reasons, and no possibility to devide photography on manipulated or notmanipulated category. All the pictures are manipulation of reality, period. Just there are good and bad manipulation.If you can get the picture from the camera and it is very good, - it is fine, if it could be improved and you did not do it - it is a fair gaim for my review. Just improve it as much as it could be improved. The roman not becoming better if it is written by a goose feather and in natural light, the same with the pictures - they could be good or bar but I do not care, how did you get it. I am against manipulated/clean category. | | | [1] | | | November 19th, 2006 05:04 PM | | shellyabarnes
Joined: Sep 18, 2006
Posts: 96 | Inpiring ggw
I love the way you phrase your comments - that's inspiration aplenty - WOW ! Take care..... | | November 19th, 2006 10:33 PM | | andreyG
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 391 | ggw
I will rather belive in Santa clause, then in a fact that you can do a good picture from a bad picture with the help of any software in the word, Having couple of flushlights and 2 cheap flashes with slave attachment and color papar on their face - I cam produce pictures that will look extraheavy manipulated, just place a drop of vaseline on UV filter - and look what happen, still my mantra - please, know your equipment and you will not worry about manipulation, I think that any opportunity given to you to inprove your point should be embaraced and taken friendly, whether befor or after lense, and if picture is not manipulated - it suppose to be the picture that does not need manipulation. And I will appretiate if somebody will explain me why not to manipulate the picture, if it will be better? Any reson for this? I have an impression that Bird Flue will be spread through a Photoshop, wouldntit? | | November 20th, 2006 10:19 AM | | andreyG
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 391 | another idea
What about to devide our pictures to camera category, because we can not compete with the clarity of pictures done by wooden cameras, or, in wildlife, I can not beat you if you use Mark2 with Sigmonster 800mm lense, I saw a macro done by a very average photographer by 180mb monstrouse camera - he can show you a middle finger of a grashoper in a fullscreen. It would have more sence for me then out of camera - manipulated . | | | [1] | |
Login Now to post a reply
(You will be brought back here to post your reply) |
Who's Online: Birdlady |
|
