Stuck Filters

On 11/7/2017 11:05 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 11/7/2017 11:01 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 11/7/2017 10:55 PM, Ron C wrote:

On Nov 7, 2017, PeterN wrote

Same theory.

...but very different time scale.

Not that different. It only works on long exposures.

--
PeterN

On 11/7/2017 11:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ron C
wrote:

Nothing that I know of in Photoshop emulates the actual
physical actions of hand/cardboard dodging.

now you know.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/dodge-burn-image-areas.html
The Dodge tool and the Burn tool lighten or darken areas of the
image. These tools are based on a traditional darkroom technique for
regulating exposure on specific areas of a print.

Says nothing about that actual visceral actions used in
the process ...back in the day.

instead of moving cardboard, it's moving a mouse or stylus. big deal.

what it doesn't say is it has a major advantage of being able to
instantly undo anything, versus having to redo the entire print in a
darkroom.

dodge/burn is also incredibly primitive and imprecise, but back in the
day, there weren't very many other options. now there are.

So you're admitting that the wet darkroom analogy is flawed.

nope.

the analogy is spot on, however, the technique is obsolete.

I can live with that.

you're living in the past and refuse to learn newer and better ways.

OK, you've got me pegged. I also listen to music with my old eight-track
cartridge player on my vacuum tube hi-fi and watch VHS tapes on
an analog CRT TV-set. I'm going back to sleep now.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

In article , Ron C
wrote:

Says nothing about that actual visceral actions used in
the process ...back in the day.

instead of moving cardboard, it's moving a mouse or stylus. big deal.

what it doesn't say is it has a major advantage of being able to
instantly undo anything, versus having to redo the entire print in a
darkroom.

dodge/burn is also incredibly primitive and imprecise, but back in the
day, there weren't very many other options. now there are.

So you're admitting that the wet darkroom analogy is flawed.

nope.

the analogy is spot on, however, the technique is obsolete.

I can live with that.

you're living in the past and refuse to learn newer and better ways.

OK, you've got me pegged. I also listen to music with my old eight-track
cartridge player on my vacuum tube hi-fi and watch VHS tapes on
an analog CRT TV-set. I'm going back to sleep now.

there's nothing wrong with that, unless you think those are somehow
better than modern digital audio and hdtv.

On 11/8/2017 10:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ron C
wrote:

Says nothing about that actual visceral actions used in
the process ...back in the day.

instead of moving cardboard, it's moving a mouse or stylus. big deal.

what it doesn't say is it has a major advantage of being able to
instantly undo anything, versus having to redo the entire print in a
darkroom.

dodge/burn is also incredibly primitive and imprecise, but back in the
day, there weren't very many other options. now there are.

So you're admitting that the wet darkroom analogy is flawed.

nope.

the analogy is spot on, however, the technique is obsolete.

I can live with that.

you're living in the past and refuse to learn newer and better ways.

OK, you've got me pegged. I also listen to music with my old eight-track
cartridge player on my vacuum tube hi-fi and watch VHS tapes on
an analog CRT TV-set. I'm going back to sleep now.

there's nothing wrong with that, unless you think those are somehow
better than modern digital audio and hdtv.

No. It's just that I'm "living in the past and refuse to learn newer and
better ways."
As "they" say: Ignorance is bliss.
Damn, [rhetorically:] why the heck did I wake up for this.
I'm going back to sleep again.