Originally Posted by
MrJim
Not to kick a hornets nest, but some of the ideals of form and aesthetics in Sandy's article I can kind of see in some digital prints that rely heavily on a tablet and Corel Painter, or that topaz plug in (don't know which one, never used it). Should that kind of digital image be considered, "pictorial?" I've defended some of those images, as photographs in a local club I belong to because they were at one time a reality, but the process the the photgrapher used changed the reality to add emotion or vision the photographer felt at the time, or about the image. Of course the counter being, that's not what was really there. Mind you most of them shoot color, and man did I get blasted for bringing up interpolation, bayer filters, and the technology that records "reality," you blindly trust your in camera JPEG processing or, software?
bleh, not sure what I'm really asking. I was going to ask about forms, and aesthetic but I got myself confused... if I rerail my thought process I'll add in again..
Bookmarks