I don't mean to put you down, as the image you posted does look mighty fine - and I'm sure you're a lot better at Photoshop than I am - but it sounds to me like you are much more into computers than into photography. And that's fine, but if you rely on Photoshop that much, I'm going to have trouble thinking of you as a photographer instead of a digital artist. Photography is all about the light, and having to merge a few different images to make one is a little too close to cheating for my taste.
i love both, and digital photography is a blending of the two. what i do in photoshop is the same as using an ND grad in my opinion. anything can be considered cheating. shooting digital in itself can be considered cheating, since ur using a screen and a histogram. technology changes and there will always be purists, but i just see them as new tools to create the same end result. photoshop is just a more modern, faster way of doing the same things the greats like galen rowell (yes i know who he is) and ansel adams did manually for years. i just like to take a lot of comps when i'm in the field, so i have a lot options when i decide what to process and put in my portfolio, and handling more equipment when im in the field takes more time, and thus cuts down on the amount of pics i can take as the light is quickly changing.
You may be a fantastic photographer in your own right and, as you say, you only prefer to do it all digitally. But as I said before, you just seem much more enamored with the computer than the camera, and that just sounds odd to someone like me :mrgreen: I've been shooting digital for years, but if you take my laptop away I'll just switch to my Canon film body and keep shooting the same pictures.
Maybe I'm a purist, or I think like a caveman. Who knows. But check out Galen Rowell, though I doubt that you've never seen his work. He shot some amazing stuff, was known for his perfectionist approach to exposure (yes, he used ND grads), and as far as I know, only shot film.
Either way, to each their own, and I'll still respect your skills and your own approach to the work, even if it's not in line with my own. You wrote an interesting post.
yes, i differ there. i wouldnt do it if it wasnt digital. i am not patient enough to process in a dark room and deal with film. this is why digital photography is creating so many more photographers. it's much easier now. u r a purist, more traditional than me, and that's ok, but that's not me.
the bottom line is that photography is art, and there are different ways of producing that art, and im doing it for the love of creating beautiful images, and i dont really care how i make them, as long as i create everything, and i am not stealing someone else's work. i do this for the love of the hobby, and to sell the occasional print. i wouldnt fork out thousands of dollars in photography equipment every year if i didnt love it and wasnt serious about it.
and remember, im not saying it is THE way to do it, but its the way i prefer and what works for me. me shooting 2 images of the same comp, seconds apart, and blending them in photoshop, is the exact same thing as taking 1 comp using a filter. i would prefer to get more comps as the light is quickly changing, and do all the post work on the comp when i have the time and am not constrained by the light.
whether people think it's cheating or not, i still make beautiful images that people love and buy, so what do i care? thank u for expressing yourself in a humble, polite way though
