photography
Walk

Snow Day!
In the Basement
Part of the super deal we got on this house was a free pool table. The previous owner didn't think it was worth his time to move it, I suppose.
Not only does it provide endless entertainment for L, sitting on the table and watching the balls as I roll them to and fro, but it also provides a bit of entertainment for K and me.

Not to mention a new subject for photography.
300+ pictures
Yesterday, during the late afternoon/early evening, I uploaded about 340 pictures to Flickr. It’s all part of a new plan to start using Flickr more and our own computer’s hard drive less. We have a 250 gb hard drive, and because of pictures and now films, we’re about full.
Most of the pics are from Poland, and so they’re at least two to four years old.
Surprise
When I photograph L, I try to avoid using a flash -- for somewhat obvious reasons.

Photoshopped
French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson (Wikipedia) was a purist. He claimed that he didn't even crop any of his photos, let alone indulge in the darkroom magic of dodging and burning. Had airbrushing been available to HCB, I very much doubt he would have done much more than laugh at it.
In this digital age, it's difficult to be such a purist. Yet there must be some limits, some standard.
How much digital manipulation can you do before it's no longer a "true" image?
Wandering around Flickr, I've noticed a preponderance of heavily manipulated images -- Photoshopped to an inch of the digital existence. The results are striking, but somehow false. I get the feeling that I'm looking at an advertisement of some sort.
Examples include:
I'm not discounting the quality of the composition, nor the impact of image, but it just seems to be a little too much.
When I do digital manipulation (and I rarely use Photoshop for that anymore), my goal is simply to make the image look as it did when I took the picture.








