RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Overly obsessed with LR lens correction/perspective adjustments? | |
I once said of Ansel Adams ... "He Cheats !!!" to my instructor.
I was young. 
Robert is correct in that even if it is a film emulsion and (standard) applied chemistry, the profile diff's between Ektachrome, Kodachrome and Fujichrome are strikingly different even though the photographer himself makes "no corrections". AA (and others) of course is widely known for having the post-capture processing as part of the process of image making. The use of positives removes that from the photographer's hands (until you decide to print from the chromes), but it does not negate its validity.
Whether it is chrome, color or BW print, or digital ... the recorded capture and subsequent processing (in camera, E-6, C41, in PS, etc.) can be "standard" as defined by others, or as defined by the photographer ... which is the entire premise for digital / raw.
Use of a T&S lens or post-capture corrections are just another attribute in which we make decisions regarding our images. WB, contrast, sharpness, luminance, levels, gamma, etc. are all varying attributes of decision ... BY SOMEONE @ either us or not us, either as part of the capture or part of the post-capture processing. Even a Polaroid is a decision made by someone, and that would be a decision of us to defer much of the decision making to others.
I shot chrome so I could have a "What Ya Shot, Was What Ya Got" experience. It worked for me, but the truth is as Robert states that it only meant that "my hands" weren't directly involved in the process beyond basic camera controls. Of course, when you are making lighting decisions and/or film choice decisions ...
I think the most telling tale on the matter is that of forensic photography ... there is no such thing as an actual image of exactly what existed (albeit some pretty darn close representations), rather an effort to make a fair representation that conveys the message appropriately / illustratively. To me that represents the ends of the spectrum from technical/forensic to artistic, with each having an "inexact" replication understood as a condition of the image.
If not correcting doesn't impede your message, then "no blood, no foul", but that's not to say that images and their messages can't be improved or strengthened via correction (or other adjustment).
How "inexact" do you want your image to be (or how much does it really matter to be) ... your image, your message, your call.
|
