Re: Imaging

rosebud (rosebud@why.net)
Tue, 17 Sep 1996 23:11:54 +0000

Judy, you're really on a roll with this imaging reply.

But since you said...
> But what does it do for "art"? So
> far, I have seen *very* few images done with Adobe photo shop that I found
> conceptually and/or esthetically equal or superior to manual film. So you
> can seemlessly put a girl's head on a cow's body, pixel by pixel. Oh boy.
> And you could blend two negatives of heads -- William Wegman did it in the
> 70s by double exposure.

I thought I'd respond, tempt fate, stick foot in mouth, invite the
slings and arrows, etc. by suggesting that Photoshop is only a tool, a
good one I'd say, but still just a tool. It is also a tool I've come to
love and, through my experiences with it, have come to love the creative
process again. It's freed me from many restraints (real and imagined)
and the boxes I felt I'd been placed into.

I'm happy to invite anyone to visit a newish website that Photo Art--
yes that babbling brook of a list--has posted. My section on the site is
finished and, yes, it's all done in Photoshop. I'm not sure I could have
done it any other way.

http://redgum.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/~mclennan/PhotoArt/gallery/gallerypages.html

I'm still getting the hang of Van Dyke, but the negatives -ala Dan
Burkholder- are really a joy to make and print.

-Darryl Baird