If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Old stuff comments | Martin Djernæs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | August 18th 04 08:30 PM |
[SI] - Entrances & Exits - my comments | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 46 | August 6th 04 08:29 PM |
[SI] Brian's Comments | Brian C. Baird | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | July 22nd 04 04:20 PM |