I do agree about Photoshop as a tool, though. While I’m not surprised at how many people I meet who say they are “purest” by not using PS I remain amused at how when asked if those same people consider framing or choice of lens or even the subject matter itself as interventions in the process they are apparently unable to relate these as tools (like PS) within the practice of photography.

In the days of the darkroom we used different grades of paper, different temperature of developer etc to physically alter the prints we made. I’ve even been known to sandwich negatives and double expose onto paper. I won’t even begin with dodging and burning in. Just because PS is a more effective way of doing some of these things doesn’t make it bad or wrong.

So what motivates the purist, the photographer who won’t touch PS? Are they saying that their images are somehow to be viewed in a different way from my retouched (spotted or contrast adjusted or some other process which PS is useful for . . . ) image?

I think that people who are anti PS may be concerned about authenticity without studying the theory behind photographic truth. It’s an understandable position but somewhat miss placed.

Thanks for the good read!

Su

That off my chest – good article!

Ideally the maps would be more “accurate” and would overlay over the actual area of Paris in google maps, however a lot of them are perspective view so this doesn’t work. I may match them up as pest possible in the future but for now Google serves as a good framework for scrolling and zooming with built in support for markers.