Had those photos been in black and white and the photographer used heavy contrast dodge and burn to give a more dramatic effect would the same be said?
I shoot a lot of both color and B&W, as most of you know you can take a simple color pic and make it MUCH more dramatic by putting it in black and white, tweak the contrast etc. You can bring out deeper emotions in my opinion. Had those photos been in black and white and the photographer used heavy contrast dodge and burn to give a more dramatic effect would the same be said?
I shoot a lot of both color and B&W, as most of you know you can take a simple color pic and make it MUCH more dramatic by putting it in black and white, tweak the contrast etc. You can bring out deeper emotions in my opinion.
Some of the raw files are so flat and bland that I wouldn't bother using them. If this guy was trying to evoke despair, the raw files didn't do it for me. It was a bit much, but to each his own.
I love these arguments, photoshopping, digital processing. I had a 30 minute debate with an 80yr old woman named Betty. Sweet as could be, nice, polite, the stereotypical grandma. She was a photographer, had been doing it for quite some time. When we started talking shop and I pulled out my D200, the gloves came off and we went at. She was firmly against digital, she contended that the computer did it all for me, all I did was push a button.
I think she saw that I was a young guy and assumed I had never shot film. Hell I cut my teeth on film for years, won state awards for my photos in my school newspaper columns and such. But even with her knowing I was an avid photographer she still remained a purist.
I went off on that tangent because I wonder if the people who excluded that journalist are bent about using digital post processing and have a hard time breaking away from the tried and true smell of developer. Would they have been so critical if it were a more traditional B&W photo, but yet still heavily processed with deeps shadows and blacks to bring out that emotional tug that you see in Life magazine photos? Processing is processing, you manipulate in a dark room or on a screen. Doing it on my computer actually take me more time often I think.
Perhaps I am off base, but the purist argument is always the first place my mind goes when I hear the PS word.
Some of the raw files are so flat and bland that I wouldn't bother using them. If this guy was trying to evoke despair, the raw files didn't do it for me. It was a bit much, but to each his own.
I love these arguments, photoshopping, digital processing. I had a 30 minute debate with an 80yr old woman named Betty. Sweet as could be, nice, polite, the sterotypical grandma. She was a photographer, had been doing it for quite some time. When we started talking shop and I pulled out my D200, the gloves came off and we went at. She was firmly against digital, she contended that the computer did it all for me, all I did was push a button.
I think she saw that I was a young guy and assumed I had never shot film. Hell I cut my teeth on film for years, won state awards for my photos in my school newspaper columns and such. But even with her knowing I was an avid photographer she still remained a purist.
I went off on that tagent because I wonder if the people who excluded that jounalist are bent about using digital post processing and have a hard time breaking away from the tried and true smell of developer. Would they have been so critical if it were a more traditional B&W photo, but yet still heavily processed with deeps shawdows and blacks to bring out that emotional tug that you see in Life magainze photos? Processing is processing, you manipulate in a dark room or on a screen. Doing it on my computer actually take me more time often I think.
Perhaps I am off base, but the purist argument is always the first place my mind goes when I hear the PS word.
