thomas_durst

Regradless of whether the manipulations are done digitally or

traditionally, I feel there is a limit to what can be done to an image

and still be considered photography and not graphic arts. Personally,

I consider anything beyond burning/dodging, contrast control, and

cropping to be graphic arts and not really photography. I feel that

photography is always a "direct from object" art medium, just as

drawing or painting can be "direct from object." By adding or

removing an object from an image by not cropping it out, I feel that

one is violating the sense of reality which accompanies photography as

a medium. (Yes, before panchromatic films, photographers had to

composite images to include clouds in a landscape, but I consider this

to have been a technological problem in photography that was only

remedied by compositing. I don't know if I would have composited

clouds into my landscapes, however.) Using filters and such to affect

the contrast of an image is acceptable to me because you are not

"changing what trhe scene was" but rather affecting the mood and

contrast of the image to acheive what was visualized. But I cannot

see how you can "visualize" something that was not in the original

scene, or was in the original scene but not in the final image.

Blurring also strikes me as removing the final image from the original

scene. In short, anything that is not "direct from object" using a

camera is not photography, but it is graphic arts. This is my

position on the subject of manipulations, what is your position?

*Note: I only work with B&W; thus, my position on color manipulations

such as changing some othe the colors does not exist.

I'm debating about which one I should get when I upgrade my SLR

system. I would be able to get the 7 in about half the time as the 9,

but the cost is not a major concern. I'm wondering if the 9 is worth

the extra money; with consideration to use in inclimate weather i.e.

subzero temperatures, snow/ice, and rain.

Whether or not there are any advancements left depends on if you look at

photography as art or not. I see it as art, and therefore limitless

advancements. Sure, no one may come up with a totally original philosophy

or approach to photography, but I don't see how that matters. As an artist I am

more concerned with my own self expression than with originality.

I strongly doubt it is possible to determine if there are any remaining

advancements left in photography or anything else for that matter. Over a

hundred yeaars ago it was thought that there were no more advancements

possible in physics, then Michelson and Morley did their experiment which

led to Einstein developing the theory of relativity. That was a watershed

moment for new advancements in physics and mathematics. To say there are

no more advancements left in photography cannot be truthfully done. Who

knows what can be contributed to the medium in the future.

A question to ask yourself. Do you want to do photography for your own

personal satisfaction, or for recognition? If for recongition then I would say put

the camera down. If for personal satisfaction, then learn what you can and

develop your own style and see what happens. Again, I'm not talking about

the more techincal aspects of photography.

I'm just going to try the different IRs and see what happens. That negative

does look useable.

I want to start using infrared film and I'm wondering how much of an effect the

IR counter in the Maxxum 7 will have. According to most any manufacturer,

you cannot use infrared film in a camera with an IR counter. That narrows the

usable new AF cameras down to the F100 and the Maxxum 9. From reading

other message boards, some say the IR counter will only fog the portion of the

film that is read by the counter (that being off frame), and others say it can't be

done. Has anyone tried IR film in the Maxxum 7? How much fogging does

occur?