Doug's Photo for 7th June

On Jun 11, 12:12 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:36 pm, Ryadia wrote:

If I did that to my pictures, they would look like yours and I don't
like
how your pictures look.

Fair enough. Continue to bask in your mediocrity then.
One is taught in accordance with one's fitness to learn.
I guess it is true what they say about old dogs.

You see, Bret?
Someone disagrees with you and your get your nose out of joint.
In an exhibition of Photographs, your pictures would be passed over
for judgment by many International judges for no other reason than you
work them over with software until they no longer qualify as
photographs but become graphic art.

It isn't about my pictures. I showed you a simple way to make your
photos better and you quickly dismissed it and attacked my photos.
You don't want your pics to look like mine?
Well believe me, I damn sure don't want my pics to look like yours
either!

BTW, I learned that technique from a Photoshop seminar given by
experts. It is used by probably 95% of Professional Photographers. I
mean REAL Professional Photographers that sell their work, not
delusional ones with mythical print centers.
I'm sure those pros who use that technique would not want their pics
to look like yours either.

So ignore my suggestion if you are too stupid to learn. Makes no
difference to me. Continue cranking out mediocre (or worse) photos
with an occasional decent one produced at the same frequency that a
blind hog finds an acorn.


Bret there is no point to helping some who do not appreciate your
effort. How many times have you helped a few on this NG only to get a
kick in the head?
Do not cast your pearls before swine.
Helen

"Doug Jewell" wrote in message
...

While there is a bit of a fine line between photoshopping to enhance
photographs, and photoshopping to to become graphic art, the technique
that Bret alluded to is fairly elementary darkroom stuff - is there any
difference between doing this in the darkroom and doing it in photoshop?
In the last few days someone posted a link in here to a bunch of
photographic work done in Europe between the WW's - not a photoshop
program in sight, just advanced darkroom skills. Some of it was extremely
well done. At what point is it not ok to photoshop, when with advanced
darkroom skills it is just as possible (just longer to do) to create a
photograph that never existed in the real world? Is photoshop bad simply
because anyone who can afford the program can do it? Whereas doing it in
the darkroom required 1) a darkroom and 2) advanced skills?


Photoshop has it's place. I use it daily. Despite what Bret thinks, I shoot
RAW + small JPEG and only work the JPEG in Photoshop if it's to be my "Photo
for the day". I use the JPEGs as reference pictures. Quite a lot more
advanced than he would have you believe I work.

Bret offered me a mask that turns photographs into glossy magazine pictures.
Fair enough for some. I don't happen to like oversaturated, ultra contrast
pictures. Bret seems to think that because he paid some Photoshop guru to
show him how to do something at a seminar, this is the be all and end all of
how it's done. God help the world if this ever happens.

It seems to be an American attitude. Do as I say and I'll make you famous.
And what of individuals? Do they no longer have any opinions or preferences?
Maybe a Big Mac has become the measure of hamburgers? A hamburger now is
either as good as or as bad as a Big Mac? What of "greasy Joe" down the
road? Does he who claims to make the "BEST" now have to fill his juicy
burgers with some vile smelling green crap because a guru at McDonalds
showed him how to do it?.

Depending on which side of the fence you sit on, you either like faithful
reproduction of a scene or you go for the plastic look. In the days of film,
I strove for finding a film that would produce natural green - the colour of
Australian foliage whilst maintaining a flat contrast. I found it with Agfa
films. Did that make me a worse photographer just because I choose not to
use American or Japanese film? No, it just showed my work as looking
different than the trend.

It's a fact; You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time and it's a
Don Quixote who even tries. I am happy that the majority of people who come
to my exhibitions and order pictures, like my style of photography. When
Bret goes to the public instead of these groups for approval, he'll be a
lucky fella if he is as successful as me.

The bit Bret is yet to accept is that he doesn't have to like other people's
pictures, just respect that they have the same rights as him to display
them. Hell will probably freeze over first but it's a goal he should aim
for.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...


Why is it that you can "cheat" with plug-ins, but if Bret shows you how to
make a few basic adjustments with photoshop...it's somehow no longer
photography?

--



Get it straight Mark... You are the only person who said it's cheating. I
said what he does is not "TRADITIONAL" photography. Don't throw fuel on the
fire unless you have an extinguisher.

On Jun 11, 4:55 pm, wrote:

Bret there is no point to helping some who do not appreciate your
effort. How many times have you helped a few on this NG only to get a
kick in the head?
Do not cast your pearls before swine.

Actually, I knew that fool couldn't be taught (you can't fix stupid),
but I thought maybe some others here would be interested in the method.

On Jun 11, 6:20 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 11, 4:55 pm, wrote:



Bret there is no point to helping some who do not appreciate your
effort. How many times have you helped a few on this NG only to get a
kick in the head?
Do not cast your pearls before swine.

Actually, I knew that fool couldn't be taught (you can't fix stupid),
but I thought maybe some others here would be interested in the method.

That's true. Thanks for your help and contributions.
Helen

On Jun 11, 5:15 pm, "Cryptopix" wrote:

Bret offered me a mask that turns photographs into glossy magazine pictures.
Fair enough for some. I don't happen to like oversaturated, ultra contrast
pictures.

That mask does nothing to the saturation or the contrast of the
photo. It simply redirects the viewer's eye to the center of interest
and away from the bright highlighted background. You know, like most
every good photograph does. No, maybe you don't know.

A more competent photographer might have chosen his "composure" (as
you incorrectly call it) to avoid these problems at the point of
capture. However, sometimes a bright background is unavoidable so one
must use the tools in front of them to get the same effect.
Anyone with "over 20 years experience as a sought-after Professional
Photographer" would know this, especially if they have a background in
film. I believe the Luddites called that dodging and burning or
something like that. For your pics, D-Mac, I'd suggest burning.

----------------

Depending on which side of the fence you sit on, you either like faithful
reproduction of a scene or you go for the plastic look.

There is no such thing as a faithful reproduction of a scene in
photography. Never has been, never will. Everything is an
interpretation.

-----------------

The bit Bret is yet to accept is that he doesn't have to like other people's
pictures, just respect that they have the same rights as him to display
them. Hell will probably freeze over first but it's a goal he should aim
for.


I don't know which part of your ass you pulled that gem from.
I've never done anything here to discourage anyone from posting their
pics. In fact, I am on record as often encouraging more people to do
so, and have done many battles with the Off-Topic Police on those
issues. I even enjoy looking at Rocha's pics, as horrible as they
are.
Looking at photos is like listening to music ..... I'd rather have
seen/heard it and hated it then to have never seen/heard it at all.

In golf there is a saying, "Every shot makes somebody happy."
Same goes for photography. We can learn valuable lessons even from
bad pics.
Hell, D-Mac ... you could start a friggin University!

On Jun 10, 7:40 pm, Ryadia wrote:

No EXIF data. It contains way too much information about the cameras and my business.

Or who took the pic.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 11, 4:55 pm, wrote:
Bret there is no point to helping some who do not appreciate your
effort. How many times have you helped a few on this NG only to get a
kick in the head?
Do not cast your pearls before swine.

Actually, I knew that fool couldn't be taught (you can't fix stupid),
but I thought maybe some others here would be interested in the method.

yep, I was/am. Printed out your post, thanks.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Cryptopix wrote:

Bret offered me a mask...

Egads man, another address to add to my plonk list? There's got to be 15
for Douglas already. Every week I add at least another new one.

On Jun 12, 8:20 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Jun 11, 4:55 pm, wrote:



Bret there is no point to helping some who do not appreciate your
effort. How many times have you helped a few on this NG only to get a
kick in the head?
Do not cast your pearls before swine.

Actually, I knew that fool couldn't be taught (you can't fix stupid),
but I thought maybe some others here would be interested in the method.


There seems to be a perception in your mind that you are somehow not
the person you describe above. Interesting notion.
What is is it about you Bret that gets you coming back time and time
again like a street corner evangelist? Do you get some primeval joy
from making an idiot out of yourself?

Douglas