Relevant To Hellena's posting,
I have often been asked by ''straight'' users of
cameras why I am interested in anything else other than a means of making
excellent images on paper or, indeed, a monitor screen with modern digital
technology.
A very personal question, to be sure, and not easy to answer in a general way. I
usually dodge the question by saying its something to keep me amused in my
retirement, and leave it at that.
But thinking deeper I realize that today, more than ever before, people are
enticed by programmes such as Adobe Photo Shop etc., to change the results of
their snaps into ''alternative'' images basically emulating, by electronic
means the chemical results, and much more, achieved by
photographers over several years into the past of photographic history. The
creators of Adobe P.S. guessed that, given easily accessible means people
may, especially in the commercial world of advertising, welcome being able
to manipulate straight images in a ''creative'' way.
Nevertheless, I feel that the old ways offer results which cannot be
copied by other means ( a challenge there ! ! )
Serendipity can produce a desirable and unexpected result not
envisaged when first taking a subject image with the
camera lens. The actual work involved in modifying the image is very
satisfying whatever process is employed whether digital or
otherwise.
''Alternatively'', some old processes are supposed to confer greater
archival properties to pictures if this is of any particular
importance.
The above still leaves the questions; what subjects suit specific
processes?
Or, why use a particular process for a certain
subject ?
Everyone will have their own ideas about this. I am also a painter using
traditional materials and some ''alternative'' ones, too
Good luck with whatever you are doing. Live and let
live.
Off my soapbox.
Quirky John - Photographist - London -
UK.
|