Originally Posted by Domino

When did he die ? can find no record.
also no record of the filmstock, settings
although his self portraits, of which there are a couple, definitely show a non digital camera perhaps he uses a digital to plan the setting of the room.

he appears to have a good sideline with some very expensive "coffee table" books, one I saw for $195.00. Perhaps short run limited edition.

looking back again and again he has quite obviously used additional lighting over the normal ambient, otherwise the rooms would be lopsidedly lit. However, he would appear to have not used any enhancement to hide that additional lighting as the blook from the lights is still visible.

whatever, if man does stop still I trust and hope these monuments to man's abilities will still be there when the little green men land and start looking at what we acheived and be impressed.

Originally Posted by Domino

probably not relevent but some "snaps" that show the art of photography being used to bring out the excellence of design that is possible when someone has the money

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-palaces.html

Originally Posted by Pocaloca

I thought I read in one of the sites I looked at this morning that he died in 2010, but you're right, there is no record and he isn't even on Wikipedia! Absolutely beautiful work though, thank you for pointing me in his direction.

Originally Posted by Pocaloca

I thought I read in one of the sites I looked at this morning that he died in 2010,.

Originally Posted by Domino

prefer the original photo, it is real, how the camera and the fotog saw the subject at the time
anything else is Frankenstein IMO

just remember that the original photo is a mark of the quality of the work of a professional or amateur practising his profession or hobby.

going back later isnt possible except physically returning, making alterations in the pc studio is just a game of Frankenstein

bring back 35mm, the expertise of choosing the settings and getting good photos that are true to life or an absolute disaster, just don't bring back Agfa who had the weirdest colouring.

Originally Posted by Mitzyboy

If you honestly think that a professional photographers work is untouched after the original shot then you are sadly mistaken.

In the same way when film was used, the film used to go into a dark room for processing and was fiddled about with in much the same way as we fiddle these days electronically. Frankenstein, as you put it, has absolutley nothing to do with it ... electronic manipulation is only what people have been doing since film was invented ... its just up to date

Originally Posted by Domino

yes, and when they visit the castle and can't see it with the halo they will get upset

yes it was possible to "juggle" with the developer, timer etc to "improve" a picture but it was also possible to ruin it very quickly and easily.
I see photography as a skill, it enables an individual to show that skill, take the skill (and charm) David Bailey used to bring out the best in his female subjects. The same goes for Cecil Beaton.
Also the finding of the subject and the composition. That is a skill some of those with a €1000 happy snapper attitude will never attain.

Originally Posted by Domino

Originally Posted by Mitzyboy

Yes I know, but all I was saying is that digital manipulation is in effect the same thing and therefore the process has been taking place for generations in different ways Therefore all photography ever taken is the Frankenstein effect????