Oh yes, glad I popped back in, thanks for posting that Katharine. You found some magic with the "find edges" filter for this picture -- it gives a cloisonnée appearance that gives strength and interest (made as a gum bichromate, that is!). I have many negatives that puzzle me, in that I know there's something interesting and good in there but I don't know how to bring it out. If I get interested enough, I'll try anything to bring it out. As for "illustration" vs... vs what? Pure photography? What's that? This is for professional critics and academics to pore over. People who make pictures should spend their time on making pictures.

Ok, here are the rules. Edicts, actually:

One shall not apply saturation beyond 20 across all channels.

One shall not apply USM with a radius larger then .3.

All manipulations must be done in 16 bit depth. except for leap years, when one can use 8 or 12 bit depth.

Thank you.

As a newbie, I'm hoping that sanking's views hold sway.

My analogue shooting will always be scanned, manipulated via Lightroom2 and/or CS3 before being sized and posted. However, although there's a digital element to the workflow, I want my images to be true to their roots and resemble, as far as possible, a film photo - albeit one with a little digital assistance.

Ok, here are the rules. Edicts, actually:

One shall not apply saturation beyond 20 across all channels.

One shall not apply USM with a radius larger then .3.

All manipulations must be done in 16 bit depth. except for leap years, when one can use 8 or 12 bit depth.

Thank you.

ROFLMAO!

A friend of mine is taking a photography course - there is a module on "simulating silver-gelatin prints in Photoshop". I dunno, it makes me scratch my head.