Sometimes people try to tell me that there isn't much to photograph in Scotland, and I think, nonsense. If one of the best photographers from one of the world's best magazines thinks we're worth an extended visit, then there must be something a bit special about the place.
I wanted to see more, so I looked for the name of the photographer as printed in the magazine, then searched online for his own website.
http://www.jimrichardsonphotography.com/
The site has a section called 'FAQ' - frequently asked questions, where he describes the idea of pictures working together to tell a story. He also points out that National Geographic does not allow any Photoshop manipulation of the pictures - so no removing of telegraph poles, no adding clouds, no HDR and even if photos are stitched together to make a panorama, the caption tells readers that this has been done. "The bottom line," he says, "is that the reader has to be able to trust what they are seeing."
This is what most magazines, other than fashion and advertising, are like. They expect the photographer to get things right in the camera, and not depend on Photoshop to make it better than it really is. They also say that the only techniques that are acceptable are those that were used in the darkroom - such as cropping and a bit of dodging and burning. And that's it. So if you need Photoshop to make your pictures better, you're doing it wrong!
This is why we still teach darkroom printing.
Well Keith, that makes me very angry. You could spend your whole life travelling round just bits of Scotland, and still never capture, everything there is to see or offer. After all look at Ansel adams as an example he spent a whole lifetime in Yosemite national park, and I don't think it did him any harm photographically or spiritually.
ReplyDelete