Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/10/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I guess your reading ability is about on a par with your writing skills. Go back to Don's original post. "The OOF is a bunch of candles in the background." Since they do appear to be lit, I guess you could say they have been manipulated. Gary - -- Gary W. Marklund Peoria, Arizona USA On Friday October 10 2003 20:26, Afterswift@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/10/03 7:56:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > dorysrus@mindspring.com writes: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1814599 > > --------------------------------- > Don, > > The fortuitous appearance of the gray aperture blade reflections in all the > right places -- if that is what those octagonal figures are -- to break up > the black background and give the fluted flower an entourage provides this > image with distinction because the effect could not be predicted when using > a Leica M. If this isn't a manipulated image, then we're looking at the > rare miracle that the camera can come up with on its own. Being somewhat > cynical as a judge these days, I would request to see the original > negative. Not that I'm questioning your veracity, but I'm aware of the > unconscious tendency to forget what really took place post exposure. I've > been a victim of the same wishful thinking when the negative seen later > hits me like an ice cold Niagara. > > The declaration on PhotoNet is laudable re the NO box, but the definitions > of 'unmanipulated' are somewhat too liberal for my tastes as they would > apply to the very talented and experienced field photographers on LUG who > can think on their feet and who don't need darkroom or Photoshop crutches. > > br > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html