Hi,
After reading most of the online postings from the very start to the
latest I have now some questions.
I'll put them in a example that relates to another thing I do
which also involves the ingredients analog, digital, computer editing
and storage: photography.
When I take pictures with my digital camera I try to capture what I
see; I rather just take the time to make a great visual composition
(without altering the scene) and just point and shoot as opposed to
taking a picture and later spending lots of time digitally editing it
to `get it right'. I believe that if the composition is right
then there is no need for large editing, maybe a little cropping
(cutting away parts around the edges) or doing a slight brightness
and contrast adjustment to make the colors somewhat more true to the
real world.
But I hate to spend lots of time behind the computer trying to get
something out of it that isn't really in there in the first place.
The same goes for my approach (and most of you guys I think) of audio
recording.
I rather wait until the right circumstances are there to record a
good nature recording and wish to edit it at my computer as little as
possible (maybe some EQ, some volume level change but nothing all to
drastic) I know that with today's computers and software it is
very
tempting to edit hours for a recording that actually last maybe 3
minutes...
But how good is that?
I learned that the folks on this list who do birding and frogging are
trying to have a library of scientific storage, so post-editing is
forbidden. But what about sound artist (like Aaron with his Memories
from Annapurna recording)? How do you guys feel about editing? How
much is acceptable, and what types of sound-editing is done?
Regards, Evert
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|