ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints



Hi Bob,

Of course, you can make up anything in an image that you want...you can put
a soldier pointing a gun at a man with a child, but what's important is that
anything you simply make up isn't original.  I don't know of any programs
that create new detail (automatically that is) where none existed
before...do you?  Does GF do that?

Basically, this is the same argument as to how much you can PhotoShop an
image before it isn't really representative of the "original" recording.
Some argue that B&W isn't really representative of an "original", and is
actually an "abstract".

I do in fact like to keep the fidelity of the image as high as possible,
that, to me, is what photography is about...as is audio.  Obviously, some
people like to PS their images...some more than others...to each his
own...but I do believe that photography (at least labeled as photography) is
supposed to be representative of reality (IOW, maintain the highest
fidelity), and though I completely accept people manipulating their images,
and calling it "art", I think it should be labeled as such...and adding
detail to an image that simply didn't exist in the original representation
of the image is a manipulation of the recording of the image.  I'm not
against it, just in people calling it photography ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> Surely you can; it just isn't 'original' detail. But to anyone who hadn't
> seen the original detail, it might look just as good. After all,
> people pay
> millions for artists' representations of original detail, so why
> shouldn't a
> digicam representation of original detail make a good picture. It
> might not
> be an 'accurate' record, but then neither is the painting, and I doubt if
> 'accurate record' pictures are what turn most people on. They clearly are
> what turns you on, but you are unusual I suggest!!
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
>
> > You can't create detail where detail didn't exist in the
> > original file in the first place.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.