Digital BW, The Print

Hi Herb,

> It just
> seems like you make it a point of honor to avoid Photoshop
> maniuplations, and take great pride in the fact that you can take
> pics with perfect exposure, focus, lighting, etc.

That's somewhat true...but only in the sense that I do strive for perfect
exposure, focus, lighting, framing etc. with the film...but I don't do it to
avoid using PS.  I do believe my images are fine without PS...but that
doesn't mean ALL my images have perfect everything, I've never said that.
Certainly not the case.  I probably print one out of 10-20 at
BEST...sometimes only a handful out of 100 or more!

> ... it seems
> like misplaced pride to eschew the use of the methods.

I'm not in any way eschewing the use of these methods.  I was told I MUST
use them or my images are "inferior".  I say I do not need to.  I believe my
images are perfect without them.

> But I do think any suggestion that properly taken pictures don't need
> Photoshop manipulation is just a bunch of bunk.  Great darkroom
> photographers of the past manipulated their photos in many of the
> same ways it's done now in Photoshop.

It depends on what your goal is, doesn't it?  Now, my goal isn't to NOT
manipulate them in PS, but I find I have no need to.  I don't believe one
NEEDS to ALWAYS manipulate EVERY image in PS...

> Would you have had the hubris
> to have told Ansel Adams that if he'd taken a better negative he
> wouldn't have had to do all that dodging and burning?  (Hmm, I'm
> guessing maybe you would have!) -- Herb

Not at all, his photography is vastly different than mine (both in style and
use)...as well as the tools and technology he used.

Regards,

Austin