I am continuing a particular aspect of the discussion of Stephen Willard's thread
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=42075 ("The ethics of modern day photography") here, since there are so many other topics discussed there.
I'd to refrain from discussing the muddled terrain of ethics, but rather question whether color nature photographs that are perceived as unmanipulated do sell better, as Stephen affirms. Based on the statements of some successful photographers in this field that strenuously emphasize the lack of computer manipulation in their prints, there seems to be some support for this idea.
Amongst people who asked me questions, either through email or at my recent show, there were also quite a few who wanted to know the extent of manipulation. I don't know if it was out of curiosity or out of concern.
A tangent to the discussion here:
"There is one saving grace that LF digital photographers have over the digital camera guy, LFers can prove their prints are a real life experience by simply allowing the original negative or slide to be inspect by any customer. I intend to anounce on my website that I am willing to make all negatives available for inspection. "
Did anyone ever ask you to see the film ? Never happened in my experience.
However, several years ago, my wife and I were at Galen Rowell's Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop. It turned out that they had a (repro ?) 35mm slide to show to customers exactly for the purpose you mention. To both of our eyes, the saturation was clearly higher in the print than on the slide. Personally, I don't mind a bit of extra saturation, but it is a big turn-off for my wife, while I don't think she'd care that you removed a branch.
Bookmarks