Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!mwf
From: mwf@mtgzz.UUCP (m.w.field)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Art vs. Technique
Message-ID: <1079@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 18:27:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1079
Posted: Mon Aug 26 18:27:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 21:25:15 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 24

Of course you should use darkroom manipulation to achieve what you
desire is a print.

The main problem in photography is getting what you 'see' on the
print. I don't know how many times an ugly garbage container in
the background because I didn't 'see' it (I think I've got that
one beaten now though).

When I take a photo I have in mind the image that I want to see
on the page and any method of achieving that seems to be fair,
whether that means using different lenses or using darkroom techniques.

By the way (related to "Kodachrome is the only way") I just used
up a few rolls of Fujichrome (100) and the results are lovely. The
subjects were mainly woodland and waterfalls and the reproduction
of greens and browns was very good. When I went back to my local
"Best" to by more I found they have stopped selling the stuff !
Is this a Kodak conspiracy ? Fujichrome is many dollars cheaper
than Kodachrome and Ektachrome and I was looking forward to a
log affair with it.

Maybe the profit margin is not as good.

				(ihnp4!)mtgzz!mwf