If the intended use is such that "right" is indistinguishable (for the intended
audience)
from "fixed in Photoshop" then I see no reason to waste the extra time.
Remember, my original example was quarter-page usage. If it was
full-page-in-Architectural-Digest usage then I'd firmly be on the side of 4 x
5, not even 6
x 6 + shift lens would likely be good enough. My whole point was that you have
to analyze
the situation and see which approach makes more sense. I believe a heedless
"we'll just fix
it in Photoshop" is just as wrong as "the shot's gotta be perfect on film, I
don't care if
takes hours"
It's also interesting to see Cartier-Bresson invoked (by someone else) in this
discussion.
Given his vehement opposition to cropping, I've gotta believe he'd have taken
an immensely
dim view of ANY Photoshop alteration.
Tim Schooler wrote:
> At 12:00 AM 12/4/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >There's a whole branch of the photographic art that involves the fast
> >snapping of pictures, without time to get the lighting, composition, or
> >focus just right.
>
> Whether thats art or not is probably a topic for another discussion. But
> it seems we were talking about photographing a building when this started,
> and I still see no reason not to take the time to do it right. That applies
> to many areas of photography.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tim Schooler
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
