Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Ray on August 10, 2006, 11:31:25 pm
-
I was recently looking at some Photoshop tutorials on DVD which I'd picked up in Bangkok, a bit cheap I admit. But for some reason, I find them rather boring. It reminded me of those ubiquitous, 'ever so popular' cooking programs one gets on TV. A bit of Basil here, a bit of Thyme there, a pinch of salt, an ounce of butter and a dash of pepper etc etc.
I'm beginning to feel I'm a visual cook, catering to the esthetic eye rather than the well trained olfactory and taste-bud palette.
I mean, I could spend the rest of my life re-hashing, re-doing, modifying, altering, improving, enhancing, reconverting, stitching etc. etc. the images I already have, without taking another single photo.
Whatever print I produced just 3 years ago, I now feel to be inadequate. I'm confident I can now go back to the RAW image and perhaps by just using Raw Shooter instead of ACR, do a better job, not to mention a few other techniques I might have picked up in Photoshop in the meantime.
When is a photographic work of art really complete?
-
Good question. I believe it's a common saying in the art world to state that it takes two to create art. One to do it and one to tell the artist that "It's done".
I feel the same, Ray. Every time I use Photoshop I think I learn something new about photography.
And that's a good thing.
Peter
-
I feel that each piece an artisit create is relevant at the time of its capture.
It is made of of mood, inspiration, circumpstances and technical limitations of the medium and of the artist himself.
Do we tear down art nouveau building because new titanium forming technology makes it possible to machine metallic flower more accurately? Did Picasso redo all of his previous paintings the day he decided to change style?
We should be proud of who we were 1 year, 5 years 10 years ago and the work we procuded them remains relevant and valid.
cheers,
Bernard
-
You can always revisit an image and make a new interpretation of it, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. If a sculptor keeps chipping away at a block of marble, eventually he'll have a pile of chips instead of a statue. You need to stop fiddling and move on at some point. Finding that point is just as important as learning exposure, focus, and composition.
-
Ansel Adams often changed the way the printed his images, and they evolved from year to year as his vision of how he wanted the scene to look varied. Nothing wrong with that, and why not give your pasta a little different flavor as your own tastes change? Photoshop is just another darkroom/kitchen and there will always be different ways to cook.
-
I've always looked at photography as a subtractive process - stripping away everything that's not essential to the fundamental image (I'm not distinguishing the sub-processes that go into creating an image - ie capture vs pp). In that sense a painter is more like a chef - starts with an empty plate and adds stuff until its "done". I think painters have more difficulty in knowing when the painting is finished than do photographers and their images.
-
Ansel Adams often changed the way the printed his images, and they evolved from year to year as his vision of how he wanted the scene to look varied. Nothing wrong with that, and why not give your pasta a little different flavor as your own tastes change? Photoshop is just another darkroom/kitchen and there will always be different ways to cook.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I knew that Ansel changed the way he printed, so I decided to look up some examples. From his book "Examples-The Making of 40 Photographs", I looked for his "Moonrise-Hernandaze New Mexico". Not only was this image printed a varity of ways due to changes in papers that he used, but it was also interesting to learn that several years after he took the shot, he went back to the only negative he made, and "re proccessed it". Can you imagine how he would have handled Raw images with todays technology?
Within the last few months, I have gone back to images I made 10, 20, even 30 years ago and have found them even more intersting, and challaging at the same time.
-
I think of Photoshop more as a paint brush for photographers. It's functions lend it to expressions of "artistic license" in much the same way a painter interprets reality. Artistic license and self-expression are accepted and respected in painting, and I see no reason they can't fill the same role and find the same acceptance in artistic photography.
Before photography leered its head painting was commonly used as "photojournalism," but the medium has certainly survived being supplanted in that role by photography. I don't see why some similar transition in photography over time isn't possible, or even likely.
With the ever-stronger emergence of television and webcasting, video is in the process of supplanting still photography as the main medium for photojournalism. My glass is usually half full, so I regard that as an opportunity for still photography to move on from the strict dictates of "reliality" imposed by traditionalists, much as painting was freed from reality by the emergence of photography.
-
You can always revisit an image and make a new interpretation of it, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. If a sculptor keeps chipping away at a block of marble, eventually he'll have a pile of chips instead of a statue. You need to stop fiddling and move on at some point. Finding that point is just as important as learning exposure, focus, and composition.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not the best of analogies, Jonathan. All processing in Photoshop can be undone or discarded if the processing consists of layers that have been kept. If it doesn't or they haven't, there's the RAW image which is often described as a digital negative but is in fact much more than that. The RAW image is more like a latent image on a roll of film that can be developed and redeveloped as many times as you like. Imagine what Ansel Adams would have done if he'd had that opportunity, as new types of developers came on the market, or even experimenting with existing types of developers on the same piece of film.
Just making a larger print from an image, because one has bought a wide format printer or for whatever reason, requires a reworking of the image with regard to contrast, sharpening and interpolation.
-
Whatever print I produced just 3 years ago, I now feel to be inadequate. I'm confident I can now go back to the RAW image and perhaps by just using Raw Shooter instead of ACR, do a better job, not to mention a few other techniques I might have picked up in Photoshop in the meantime.
Maybe that is nothing more than a result of your development as artist and technician?
When is a photographic work of art really complete?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excellent question!
For me, I think I have a real 'winner' when I can print it anyway I feel at the time (like a bit cooler or a bit warmer; more saturated or less; lighter or darker) and it remains a good image. And yet this certainly doesn't imply the image is perfect technically -- most of mine aren't!
Cheers,
-
That's not the best of analogies, Jonathan.
I'm well aware that one can go back to a RAW and process it an infinite number of times with an infinite number of interpretational intents. But the fact that a thing can be done does not mean that it should be done. One only has so much time in life, and allocating all of it to reinterpreting one image when one could be out shooting something even more meaningful is perhaps not the wisest use of a limited resource. At some point, you ought to go out and shoot some new dead horses to beat.
-
At some point, you ought to go out and shoot some new dead horses to beat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do and I am, Jonathan. I've got more images than I can handle already and shortly I'll be going on another trip to shoot another 5 to 10 thousand. I've got no shortage of images to work on.
-
I feel that each piece an artisit create is relevant at the time of its capture.
It is made of of mood, inspiration, circumpstances and technical limitations of the medium and of the artist himself.
But, in the context of the original question, isn't this exactly why it is more important to "focus" on the mood or message alone. If the mood or message is conveyed adequately, then the piece is finished. Regardless of whether:
- the picture can be reduced to still convey the same mood/message (even though I like Tim Gray's idea of a subtractive process)
or
- the picture can be shot with more quality, under better circumstances, or even with better skill...
This also reveals the necessity of "intent". If you shoot without prior intent, just hoping to "catch" pretty pictures, then it obviously becomes much harder to define when a picture "adequately" depicts the intent, no?
-
For me the answer is purely pragmatic. An image is "done" when I'm satisfied with it, when I tire of it, or when another image grabs my attention. Going back at some point in the future is a separate decision motivated by a new insight, curiosity about a new processing technique, or a new use for the image. It's kind of like deciding whether to release a new, revised edition of a book or simply to write another book.
There's a perfect parallel in writing. You can edit a piece of writing to death, but when is it really "done?" At some point you either print it or file it, but you do stop editing.
-
Just my 2 cents... the less i do in photoshop, the better my image was
-
When is a photographic work of art really complete?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like the story about the violin maker, who, when asked how long did it take to finish a violin, replied, "I've never finished one. After awhile, they just come and take it away."
-
Sorry, Ray - but your responses to Jonathan suggest to me that you didn't take his meaning. Let's put it in pragmatic terms: I absolutely forbid you to rework any image until at least two (2) years have passed. Two years being just a guess on how long it would take you to reach a new developmental plateau. (I'm referring to heart+soul, not technical, development.)
Another reason to shelve an image is that it takes a certain length of time to get over the initial infatuation. After a certain length of time one can hope to see an earlier work with fresh eyes, which - to shamelessly mix metaphors - frequently has the effect of winnowing the wheat from the chaff. No point in labouring over an image only to chuck it from your master portfolio at a later date.
*
And, if I may be permitted a meta-comment, a lot of excellent responses so far. Apparently you've crafted one of those rare questions that is amazingly resistance to head-tripping ... can you post a few more like this, so I can figure out how it's done? ;)
-
Sorry, Ray - but your responses to Jonathan suggest to me that you didn't take his meaning.
Dale,
It's nice of you to drop in. Another sane and experienced voice on the forum is always welcome .
I understood Jonathan's comments perfectly. But his situation is very different from mine. For example, I get the impression that Jonathan has taken more photos than the combined sum total of all the photos taken by all the photographers who have ever visited this site in the past 5 years. Perhaps a slight exaggeration , but the consequence of such prolificacy is that one can't spend more than 5 minutes processing a single image. You have to move on, especially when you might have clients impatiently waiting for their wedding photos.
Another reason to shelve an image is that it takes a certain length of time to get over the initial infatuation. After a certain length of time one can hope to see an earlier work with fresh eyes, which - to shamelessly mix metaphors - frequently has the effect of winnowing the wheat from the chaff. No point in labouring over an image only to chuck it from your master portfolio at a later date.
Absolutely spot on! But there's another angle to this. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a lot of images that don't quite make it into the master portfolio (or even into the second tier master portfolio), but (one thinks to oneself) they might after some extensive reworking. Now, sometimes it's better to revisit the location and take another batch of shots. But sometimes it might not be possible, might be too expensive or inconvenient, or the scene at the location might have changed drastically. I don't think it would be possible to duplicate Ansel Adams' Moonrise at Hernandez. The place has changed too much.
I revisited Nepal a few months ago for the first time in 40 years. I have just one Kodachrome slide of Pokhara, for example, taken with my Pentax Spotmatic in 1964 (I was very economical with film in those days because I was travelling on a meagre budget).
I tried to find the exact location of that one shot I had of Pokhara, taken 40 years earlier. It was difficult because I didn't bring a print of that old photo with me. I eventually found the street. It was difficult to be certain it was the same place, but after many enquiries , I was assured that there was no other street in Pokhara with a small shrine blocking half the road and a view of the mountains.
Below on the left is the original scene, dragged from my archives. It needs some work. On the right is the modern day scene, unfortunately taken with a wider lens. The original shot would have been taken with a 135mm lens, probably from a hotel balcony.
[attachment=887:attachment] [attachment=888:attachment]
Now, I'm not trying to say that the original shot is any great work of art, but it's all I've got and it's unique and irreplaceable. I therefore feel compelled to make the most of it.
I was disappointed with the changes after 40 years. I didn't find much that was photogenic in that particular street, but as I walked down the street away from the mountains, I got the following shot which I think is rather good.
[attachment=889:attachment]
-
But, in the context of the original question, isn't this exactly why it is more important to "focus" on the mood or message alone. If the mood or message is conveyed adequately, then the piece is finished. Regardless of whether:
- the picture can be reduced to still convey the same mood/message (even though I like Tim Gray's idea of a subtractive process)
or
- the picture can be shot with more quality, under better circumstances, or even with better skill...
This also reveals the necessity of "intent". If you shoot without prior intent, just hoping to "catch" pretty pictures, then it obviously becomes much harder to define when a picture "adequately" depicts the intent, no?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that I see what you mean. Let me re-phrase: if the essence of an image is the message, then re-interpretation using state of the art techniques would be forgiveable since they don't affect the real self of the image...?
Yes, I can probably agree with this, but at the same time, I feel that the medium is part of the message too. And the medium - the print or the web image - is influenced by technology and technique. I am not saying that re-working a previouly released piece of art is unlawfull. But to me, once an image is "released" to the public (and the public can be oneself + one person), it is a done statement. Other interpretations of a past released image are IMHO other pieces of work. they should not over-write the previously released version, but co-exist as an alternative of it.
By the way, I don't think that Tim's substractive approach is incompatible with what we are saying. He speaks process while we speak end product. The substractive dimension of photography is definitely part of my process as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But to me, once an image is "released" to the public (and the public can be oneself + one person), it is a done statement. Other interpretations of a past released image are IMHO other pieces of work. they should not over-write the previously released version, but co-exist as an alternative of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
If what you mean by 'released to the public' is a finished print, then of course that work cannot be overwritten. In a sense, a print can be considered as either a finished stage of a work in progress, or the final stage, never to be reworked.
I don't see any finality in either my prints or unprinted (but processed) images in file format.
-
Bernard,
If what you mean by 'released to the public' is a finished print, then of course that work cannot be overwritten. In a sense, a print can be considered as either a finished stage of a work in progress, or the final stage, never to be reworked.
I don't see any finality in either my prints or unprinted (but processed) images in file format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ray,
For me a web image posted on Photosig, Flickr or whatever site... is just as released as a paper print. The release process transforms a blue print into a work or art that takes some place in history, would it be only our own little history.
I use "released" in the engineerig sense of the word. A part is released when its design is finished, it is given a part number, and is then manufactured and used in a finished product somewhere.
Parts in cars are modified as well by engineers who think of new ways to improve them. Each company deals with this process differently, but generally speaking an improved part gets a new part number. It doesn't over-write the previous one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
By the way, I don't think that Tim's substractive approach is incompatible with what we are saying. He speaks process while we speak end product. The substractive dimension of photography is definitely part of my process as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, and cropping the image to its bare essence not only is forgivable, but, to most of us at least, preferable. It maximizes the strength of the image. (thus it does affect the real self of an image).
I'm not sure though whether this is true for all re-applications of technique, technology, or skill. If it doesn't affect the real self of the image, then it defines the perfect metaphor for extraneous effort. That is not to say that one can not learn from this effort as an individual, but releasing such an additional version to the public other than for didactic purposes, would simply reduce the effectiveness of the image for the audience at large... There is no new information revealed which basically reduces the strength of the original intent.
-
Ray wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a lot of images that don't quite make it into the master portfolio (or even into the second tier master portfolio), but (one thinks to oneself) they might after some extensive reworking.
Now this is an entirely different aspect of the matter and one that concerns me very directly. I am constantly working with image files that are flawed, unrepeatable, yet greatly enticing. (A similar issue is the occassional image that looks great on screen but is very difficult to print.) Just last week I had not one but two image files from the same shoot that contained small areas (around 20% of the frame) that I really wanted to develop into something more than a miniature but had very few pixels to work with.
In the past I've struggled with problem images for many hours during my first pass, then made a print, then moved on. Then each time I happen to see that print I find the potential equally compelling but the flaws increasingly unacceptable. Finally, I'll pull it up again in Photoshop either because I've learned a specific new technique that might help or because I feel that over a year or two I surely must have become a better technician. The problem is that in more than half of such instances, even though I put another huge effort into a new version, I end up with something no less flawed than the first effort. Nevertheless, after some number of such marathons I have so far managed to rescue most of these dustbin delinquents.
With that as background, what I have found is there comes a point at which I do get an image into a final state - whether from the first editing session or the tenth - such that I have no quarrel whatsoever with the portfolio print. In this case I have invariably found that no future re-edit - even if I've since learned a relevant new technique - has ever resulted in an improved image. The new technique might get me to the same place much more quickly or more elegantly, but never seems to get me to a farther place. So I've learned to put these finalized portfolio images to rest and am more than happy to do so. It is rather different for a paint&pencil artist. The tendency there is, if you come across an earlier canvas or drawing and, seeing it with fresh eyes, are struck by some inadequacy (usually an embarrassing immaturity), you don't paint over the original - instead you paint a new canvas of the same scene/subject.
Now, sometimes it's better to revisit the location and take another batch of shots.
In similar vein, there are certain locations near home that I mined over the course of many visits. There comes a point at which I feel I've exhausted such a place at least until I've changed enough as a person to bring something new with me to the "old" locale.
Now, I'm not trying to say that the original shot is any great work of art
Well, I can't speak to great or not great, but I definitely like it; and if it were mine I would definitely have persisted in working it if it proved problematic.
-
Below on the left is the original scene, dragged from my archives. It needs some work. On the right is the modern day scene, unfortunately taken with a wider lens. The original shot would have been taken with a 135mm lens, probably from a hotel balcony.
Now, I'm not trying to say that the original shot is any great work of art, but it's all I've got and it's unique and irreplaceable. I therefore feel compelled to make the most of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great example of a situation where you "can't go back" -- IMO the older image is far superior to the newer one for a number of reasons and definitely warrants the efforts of a good scan and post-processing time.
Cheers,
-
Jack and Dale,
Thank you for your kind comments. Are you two amongst the few still using Internet Explorer? I get the impression I'm largely wasting my time posting thumbnails on this site since most readers appear to be so security conscious they are using any browser except IE.
-
I use IE, but there were those few folks that got burned on this very site by clicking on an embedded thumb a while back, so maybe the masses are leery? I don't ususally open anything unless I know the poster -- and I figure your thumbs are pretty safe
-
Ray -
I've been out of town (nothing interesting) and coming in late to this discussion, but I wanted to tell you that I love your 40-year-old image. To me, the content ("is the place interesting in some way?") is far more important than the technical quality. The atmosphere of the old Pokhara, as successfully communicated in your photo, is wonderful. I wish I'd seen it then. That image is definitely worth the work to make it as good as possible, and, if it's not up to your modern DSLR technical standards, then so be it. Keep it anyway!
Lisa
-
Jack and Dale,
Thank you for your kind comments. Are you two amongst the few still using Internet Explorer? I get the impression I'm largely wasting my time posting thumbnails on this site since most readers appear to be so security conscious they are using any browser except IE.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I, for one, am very disappointed in this site's non-support of Firefox. Firefox now has about 15% of the browser market. It's a heck of a bigger player than is Apple in the computer business.
Those of us who would rather avoid the problems associated with IE are frozen out of images on these forums.
I can't see your Pokhara shots and would love to do so. (I didn't visit that street until 20 years after you.) Would you please post links?
-
"Is a Photoshop user just a chef?"
Of course he is.
And real chefs create masterpieces.
-
I've been out of town (nothing interesting) and coming in late to this discussion, but I wanted to tell you that I love your 40-year-old image. To me, the content ("is the place interesting in some way?") is far more important than the technical quality. The atmosphere of the old Pokhara, as successfully communicated in your photo, is wonderful. I wish I'd seen it then. That image is definitely worth the work to make it as good as possible, and, if it's not up to your modern DSLR technical standards, then so be it. Keep it anyway!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lisa,
Thanks for your kind encouragement. Is Pokhara interesting in some way? I guess so. It's the second largest town in Nepal, nestled in a valley with views of the Annapurna range. When I was there 42 years ago there were only two methods of getting there. You either flew or you walked. I walked, from Kathmandu. It took me 2 or 3 weeks, although I can't remember the precise number of days. But I flew back .
I was very surprised when visiting the place a few months ago to see paragliders soaring above Machupichre like birds. If I'd had my 20D with me, a 500mm lens and a couple of extenders, I might have been able to catch the expression of excitement, joy and wonderment on these guys' faces. Unfortunately, a 5D with a 24-105 zoom was the best I could manage. I was travelling light. The following image is heavily cropped.
[attachment=901:attachment]
Of course, there's a bit of optical illusion going on here. That's a 23,000 ft peak and those guy are not above it.
I'm really impressed with the longevity of my 42 year old Kodachromes. They are faded a bit for sure, but not seriously.
[attachment=902:attachment] [attachment=903:attachment] [attachment=904:attachment]
Apologies to those who do not use Internet Explorer. I've tried downloading images from my workspace at photo.net (which I subscribe to), but for some reason, the images appear in the post at the time of download, giving me the imression that everything has worked okay, but the nex time I visit the LL site, the images refuse to appear. What's happening here?
-
The following shot was an enormous scanning challenge. I'd just cashed a travellers' cheque in a bank in Kathmandu (1964) and noticed some activity going on behind the building. I walked around to the rear of the building and the scene below is what I saw.
The guys in the background having a smoko were in direct sunlight (this was November). I'd adopted a policy, with my newly acquired Pentax Spotmatic, of underexposing by at least 1/2 a stop below whatever the through-the-lens exposure reading was. Someone told me this was a good thing to do with slides. With negative film, I took the opposite approach.
The Kodachrome slide shows a good exposure for the sunlit background, just below clipping of the highlights. But the foreground where all the activity occurs, was in significant shadow.
Bringing out this shadow detail satisfactorily was beyond my capabilities and apparently beyond the capabilities of all my scanners till I came across the combination of Silverfast and the KM Dimage Elite 5400 ll scanner. (Although, maybe in this scan I used Vuescan software. Geez! I'm disorganised.)
Anyway, this slide became my test slide for all scanners. The image below is the result of a lot of experimentation. Maybe I haven't got the balance right between highlights and shadows. What do you think?
[attachment=905:attachment]
-
Bringing out this shadow detail satisfactorily was beyond my capabilities and apparently beyond the capabilities of all my scanners till I came across the combination of Silverfast and the KM Dimage Elite 5400 ll scanner. (Although, maybe in this scan I used Vuescan software. Geez! I'm disorganised.)
Anyway, this slide became my test slide for all scanners. The image below is the result of a lot of experimentation. Maybe I haven't got the balance right between highlights and shadows. What do you think?
[attachment=905:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
A very nice image and a good scanning job.
I could only check the image on the screen of my non callibrated work thinkpad, so that my comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if I were to risk a comment I'd say that the image should perhaps be made a little bit darker overall?
The mid-tones of the shadows appear perhaps to be a little to bright for my taste, while the dark areas are probably OK?
Some of the sunlit parts, appear to me to be somewhat more washed out that they probably were. I am for instance thinking about the bricks in the middle part of the image? Or was the dusk plenty enough that those bricks looked like that?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
Thanks for the suggestion. You've made a valid point which I could see immediately. The image is too flat or 'washed out' as you said. It lacks 'pop'. But never mind! Unlike a chef I can uncook what has already been cooked.
I think the following is an improvement in this regard?
[attachment=906:attachment]
-
I am for instance thinking about the bricks in the middle part of the image? Or was the dusk plenty enough that those bricks looked like that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73823\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
This is a good question that needs expanding upon. Dale mentioned that a time period of a couple of years after the shot was taken, can give one a new perspective on the composition/ image/ interpretation etc.
In this instance, there's a 42 year gap between the intitial experience and the current rendition. The first scan of this slide was by Kodachrome about 12 years ago. so there was then a 30 year gap. Unfortunately, the standard Photo CD process was completely inadequate to render detail in the shadows of this slide.
As regards the emotional impact of this scene, I was fairly fresh out of an English educational system, and counting coins on the dirt floor was a very unusual and rather mind-boggling sight.
I have no recollection of the details of this scene, other than what the slide provides. But I remember the occasion.
-
I understood Jonathan's comments perfectly. But his situation is very different from mine. For example, I get the impression that Jonathan has taken more photos than the combined sum total of all the photos taken by all the photographers who have ever visited this site in the past 5 years. Perhaps a slight exaggeration , but the consequence of such prolificacy is that one can't spend more than 5 minutes processing a single image. You have to move on, especially when you might have clients impatiently waiting for their wedding photos.
That's going a bit beyond what I said. There are some images that materially benefit from reworking, and many others that don't. All I'm suggesting is to apply one's experience and maturity to distinguish the difference between coaxing a masterpiece out of its shell and applying yet another layer of lipstick to a pig. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?) And that no matter how great the image, there comes a point where one needs to quit fiddling with it and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
-
And that no matter how great the image, there comes a point where one needs to quit fiddling with it and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay! Fair enough!