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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here. Colin D. You're not, I agree with you. Though slightly disagree on the lens defect correction point. And here's why; is not difficult optically if you just use a better lens. So here I have a simple choice, spend a lot on a quality lens to get the picture the way it should look naturally, or just use a good enough lens and correct the defect with photoshop or similar application, because after all I'm just wanting the image to look natural. Selective desaturation is not a natural look. What about black and white? well yes, it is a natural look for the medium. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here. Colin D. You're not, I agree with you. Though slightly disagree on the lens defect correction point. And here's why; is not difficult optically if you just use a better lens. So here I have a simple choice, spend a lot on a quality lens to get the picture the way it should look naturally, or just use a good enough lens and correct the defect with photoshop or similar application, because after all I'm just wanting the image to look natural. Selective desaturation is not a natural look. What about black and white? well yes, it is a natural look for the medium. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Sabineellen" wrote:
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. "Colin D" responded: 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. Hi Guys, Well, if you've seen the notes which accompany my submissions, you'll see that I'm about as much of a traditional photographic "purist" as they make. Anyone with half an hour's worth of experience with PS would probably keel over dead if they saw how much analog effort I put into my Old Stuff submission. However, for me the enjoyment comes from mastering the photographic process using real materials, not virtual materials. That's why I gently teased Brian earlier about not needing a towel to dry off his hands after he was done creating his submission. But all of that aside, the fact is that the Rulz as currently written do not explicitly state that "...only manipulations that can be done optically should be ok..." Even if some may wish that they did. (And truth be told, sometimes I, too, am a part of they.) To _implicitly_ draw this conclusion is simply one individual's interpretation, which, although valid for that person, I feel should not be used to judge another individual's efforts. Rather, the Rulz do _explicitly_ say that "manipulations comparable to what those done in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate." The hand-coloring of a traditional B&W print easily falls within those bounds. Or historically has in the past, anyway. And so, then, does a digital simulation of that analog selective coloring process. Perhaps the problem here is that there are few left who even remember this technique. When I long ago headed a small commercial darkroom located near a college with a very good photographic arts department, I made many, many matte surface B&W prints intended solely for student use in hand-coloring. In fact, it was one of those art students who gave me the hand-colored print hanging in my current darkroom that I've been referring to. This "traditional photographic process" was about as mainstream as one could be. Maybe too much time has gone by and people's worlds have narrowed... On the other hand, if the problem here is that some SI participants want to change the Rulz to simply cut down or eliminate entirely any digitally captured or manipulated images, then that is another story entirely. But until those changes are put into place, just not liking Brian's digital technique - which, I'm sorry, is a simulation of what can easily be performed using "traditional photographic processes" - seems to me to be insufficient grounds for the abuse being heaped on him for a simple photo submission. Finally, it's worth noting that the last sentence of the original Rulz also states, "No big deal, just for fun." When I see someone being bullied over something as silly as a photo, that's when I can't not step in and get involved. (Are you listening as well, TP?) Best regards, Ken |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Sabineellen" wrote:
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. "Colin D" responded: 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. Hi Guys, Well, if you've seen the notes which accompany my submissions, you'll see that I'm about as much of a traditional photographic "purist" as they make. Anyone with half an hour's worth of experience with PS would probably keel over dead if they saw how much analog effort I put into my Old Stuff submission. However, for me the enjoyment comes from mastering the photographic process using real materials, not virtual materials. That's why I gently teased Brian earlier about not needing a towel to dry off his hands after he was done creating his submission. But all of that aside, the fact is that the Rulz as currently written do not explicitly state that "...only manipulations that can be done optically should be ok..." Even if some may wish that they did. (And truth be told, sometimes I, too, am a part of they.) To _implicitly_ draw this conclusion is simply one individual's interpretation, which, although valid for that person, I feel should not be used to judge another individual's efforts. Rather, the Rulz do _explicitly_ say that "manipulations comparable to what those done in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate." The hand-coloring of a traditional B&W print easily falls within those bounds. Or historically has in the past, anyway. And so, then, does a digital simulation of that analog selective coloring process. Perhaps the problem here is that there are few left who even remember this technique. When I long ago headed a small commercial darkroom located near a college with a very good photographic arts department, I made many, many matte surface B&W prints intended solely for student use in hand-coloring. In fact, it was one of those art students who gave me the hand-colored print hanging in my current darkroom that I've been referring to. This "traditional photographic process" was about as mainstream as one could be. Maybe too much time has gone by and people's worlds have narrowed... On the other hand, if the problem here is that some SI participants want to change the Rulz to simply cut down or eliminate entirely any digitally captured or manipulated images, then that is another story entirely. But until those changes are put into place, just not liking Brian's digital technique - which, I'm sorry, is a simulation of what can easily be performed using "traditional photographic processes" - seems to me to be insufficient grounds for the abuse being heaped on him for a simple photo submission. Finally, it's worth noting that the last sentence of the original Rulz also states, "No big deal, just for fun." When I see someone being bullied over something as silly as a photo, that's when I can't not step in and get involved. (Are you listening as well, TP?) Best regards, Ken |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird wrote:
Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in BS snipped, lookup: Shakespeare, William, keywords "Methinks" "Thou" "Dost" "Protest" etc. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird wrote:
Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in BS snipped, lookup: Shakespeare, William, keywords "Methinks" "Thou" "Dost" "Protest" etc. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird wrote:
Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in BS snipped, lookup: Shakespeare, William, keywords "Methinks" "Thou" "Dost" "Protest" etc. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article , says... Please, more like 1/250th of a second capturing the photo, 1 minute in Photoshop. Give me some credit! Brian + 2 credits. RP© Is that in C-Notes or gold doubloons? A discount certificate for "Photography for Dummies, Vol. II: Getting out of the car and composing the shot." -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
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 |