Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
wanted.
What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
flames on the cutaway fenders.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha