[SI] XXXV (old stuff) Alan's comments

In article ,=20
says...
Hey Brian,
=20
In my previous it may have sounded like I didn't like the photo
you submitted, this is not the case.
=20
http://www.pbase.com/image/32611107
=20
The desaturation is a nice touch. Hard to believe you shot this from a
car.
=20
RP=A9

Don't worry Rich, I suffer everything with a smile.
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,=20
says...
Hey Brian,
=20
In my previous it may have sounded like I didn't like the photo
you submitted, this is not the case.
=20
http://www.pbase.com/image/32611107
=20
The desaturation is a nice touch. Hard to believe you shot this from a
car.
=20
RP=A9

Don't worry Rich, I suffer everything with a smile.
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,=20
says...
Please, more like 1/250th of a second capturing the photo, 1 minute in=
=20
Photoshop. Give me some credit!
=20
Brian + 2 credits.

=20
RP=A9

Is that in C-Notes or gold doubloons?
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,=20
says...
Please, more like 1/250th of a second capturing the photo, 1 minute in=
=20
Photoshop. Give me some credit!
=20
Brian + 2 credits.

=20
RP=A9

Is that in C-Notes or gold doubloons?
--=20
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Alan,

I realize that this isn't exactly "abandoning the subthread," but
unfortunately Brian is correct.

Well I'll have to agree with Alan though, that I too object to the use of
photoshop beyond resize, cropping, lens defect correction... and such simple
things.

Alan,

I realize that this isn't exactly "abandoning the subthread," but
unfortunately Brian is correct.

Well I'll have to agree with Alan though, that I too object to the use of
photoshop beyond resize, cropping, lens defect correction... and such simple
things.

Sabineellen wrote:

Alan,

I realize that this isn't exactly "abandoning the subthread," but
unfortunately Brian is correct.

Well I'll have to agree with Alan though, that I too object to the use of
photoshop beyond resize, cropping, lens defect correction... and such simple
things.

Correction of lens defects like barrel or pincushion distortion or lack
of sharpness is difficult optically, simple only in PS or similar
programs, so its use for SI submissions is questionable.

And, since I am here, while Brian's desaturated barn is a delightful
image, it too would be near impossible with optical printing via an
enlarger. It's not simply desaturated, it's selectively desaturated,
with only some colors dropped out.

Since the SI is, or was, primarily a film shoot-in, it seems to me
implicit that only manipulations that can be done optically should be ok
for digital images submitted to the SI.

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

Colin D.

Sabineellen wrote:

Alan,

I realize that this isn't exactly "abandoning the subthread," but
unfortunately Brian is correct.

Well I'll have to agree with Alan though, that I too object to the use of
photoshop beyond resize, cropping, lens defect correction... and such simple
things.

Correction of lens defects like barrel or pincushion distortion or lack
of sharpness is difficult optically, simple only in PS or similar
programs, so its use for SI submissions is questionable.

And, since I am here, while Brian's desaturated barn is a delightful
image, it too would be near impossible with optical printing via an
enlarger. It's not simply desaturated, it's selectively desaturated,
with only some colors dropped out.

Since the SI is, or was, primarily a film shoot-in, it seems to me
implicit that only manipulations that can be done optically should be ok
for digital images submitted to the SI.

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

Colin D.

Colin D choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out:

Correction of lens defects like barrel or pincushion distortion or
lack of sharpness is difficult optically, simple only in PS or similar
programs, so its use for SI submissions is questionable.

And, since I am here, while Brian's desaturated barn is a delightful
image, it too would be near impossible with optical printing via an
enlarger. It's not simply desaturated, it's selectively desaturated,
with only some colors dropped out.

Since the SI is, or was, primarily a film shoot-in, it seems to me
implicit that only manipulations that can be done optically should be
ok for digital images submitted to the SI.

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

The guidelines for our little activity simply say that extensive
digital manipulation is "frowned upon." We seem to self-police ourselves
well enough, and as long as the photographer is willing to state what
they've done to the picture I don't mind simple adjustments. I do think
that explaining what's been done is important--even though we're not
competing, it's nice to know if someone has spent hours on a shot.
As far as simple Photoshop processes taking a long time in a
traditional darkroom... again, as long as what's been done is noted I
don't think we need to obsess over it. Extensive compositing or
manipulation I'd draw a line on still, but the Shoot-In is only possible
because of the Web, so all of our entries are going through a computer at
some point--no matter what everyone has to adjust something even if only
to get their images to look right on the web.

--
__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked."

Colin D choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out:

Correction of lens defects like barrel or pincushion distortion or
lack of sharpness is difficult optically, simple only in PS or similar
programs, so its use for SI submissions is questionable.

And, since I am here, while Brian's desaturated barn is a delightful
image, it too would be near impossible with optical printing via an
enlarger. It's not simply desaturated, it's selectively desaturated,
with only some colors dropped out.

Since the SI is, or was, primarily a film shoot-in, it seems to me
implicit that only manipulations that can be done optically should be
ok for digital images submitted to the SI.

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

The guidelines for our little activity simply say that extensive
digital manipulation is "frowned upon." We seem to self-police ourselves
well enough, and as long as the photographer is willing to state what
they've done to the picture I don't mind simple adjustments. I do think
that explaining what's been done is important--even though we're not
competing, it's nice to know if someone has spent hours on a shot.
As far as simple Photoshop processes taking a long time in a
traditional darkroom... again, as long as what's been done is noted I
don't think we need to obsess over it. Extensive compositing or
manipulation I'd draw a line on still, but the Shoot-In is only possible
because of the Web, so all of our entries are going through a computer at
some point--no matter what everyone has to adjust something even if only
to get their images to look right on the web.

--
__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked."