First of all, thanks for all the positive comments on yesterday's shot; it's one of my recent favourites too :-)
Second, there were a number of interesting points that came up during the discussion, some of which I'll pick up over the next couple of days, but I thought I'd start with one raised by John (not John Washington I should add) who said:
"Looking through many of the images on this site, it becomes apparent that many many hours have been spent in the digital darkroom post-processing. They then start to loose the basic principles of what photography is all about - recording an image."
Right, here's my question, or point: and I don't want to get into the 'is it photography, is it digital art' question – i) because I don't think it matters, and ii) because the debate never goes anywhere (other than round in circles) – rather, I have a different question ... why is it that some people seem so insistent that photography must be about "recording an image" and nothing more? To me this is such a nonsensical position to adopt that I can't even begin to understand why someone would make this claim. It's like saying that all paintings should be impressionistic, or that sculpters should only produce lifelike figures, or any number of other "you should be doing this and not that" comments. How is it that people end up coming out with claims, that to me at least, seem totally indefensible?
As for this image (taken five minutes before yesterday's one): it's not as impressive as yesterday's, by quite some margin, but it does capture something of a Sunday morning's stroll along the shore.
10.49am on 26/3/06|
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
17mm (27mm equiv.)