iPad use with Catalina

On 25/10/2019 13:45, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-10-25, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2019 6:29 PM, newshound wrote:

snip

And it is disappointing to find that a significant chunk of my
applications no longer work, including Audacity and Picasa.

Audacity has a suggestion for a workaround that they say has worked for
some users:
https://www.audacityteam.org/macos-10-15-catalina-is-not-yet-supported-by-audacity/.

There is no solution for Picasa which is really too bad since it was an
excellent photo editor.

There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the first
instance. Practice with a film camera if you really want to learn.

I rather suspect I was using film cameras before you were born.

In article , Incubus
wrote:


There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first
instance.

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable.

People are doing a lot more with digital editing (or "doctoring" as I call it)
than mere dodge and burn.

not really. most people do little to nothing because what comes out of
the camera is already amazingly good.

maybe they make minor adjustments to the brightness and contrast,
something film labs did without asking, and perhaps crop it a little.

and what you call 'doctoring' was also done with film, it was just a
*lot* harder, took a *lot* more time, and the results nowhere near as
good, nor were they reproducible because each time was a repeat of the
steps, and if you make a mistake, you have to start over from scratch.

Practice with a film camera if you really want to learn.

it's *much* easier to learn photography with digital.

True, but I recommend a more efficient learning curve.

nothing is more efficient than learning with digital.

On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):


You can always tell those who rely on their Photoshop crutch just a bit too
much - they get angry when you talk about not needing it.

Photoshop, and the various other digital editor, image processing software
are just tools each of which require a learning investment on the part of the
user. In much the same way the wet darkroom that we used in the past (...and
some continue to use today) required a learning investment. Neither the wet,
nor the digital darkroom is any guarantee that the user will be capable of
producing a photographic image that is pleasing to the viewer.

Neither of them, wet, or digital darkroom are crutches which will fix the
work of a poor photographer.

What all of them can do, regardless of whether it is a wet darkroom,
Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO PhotoLab, Affinity Photo, or even
Picasa, is allow the photographer who has learned how to properly use any of
those tools, to produce images which standout from the crowd of snapshots in
a way the Kodak Kiosk, Walmart, or Costco never could.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/25/2019 6:08 AM, newshound wrote:
On 25/10/2019 13:45, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-10-25, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2019 6:29 PM, newshound wrote:

snip

And it is disappointing to find that a significant chunk of my
applications no longer work, including Audacity and Picasa.

Audacity has a suggestion for a workaround that they say has worked for
some users:
https://www.audacityteam.org/macos-10-15-catalina-is-not-yet-supported-by-audacity/.


There is no solution for Picasa which is really too bad since it was an
excellent photo editor.

There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first
instance.Â* Practice with a film camera if you really want to learn.

I rather suspect I was using film cameras before you were born.

I read about film in my history book.

In article , Incubus
wrote:


There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first
instance.

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable.

People are doing a lot more with digital editing (or "doctoring" as I call
it)
than mere dodge and burn.

You have, obviously, no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

You can always tell those who rely on their Photoshop crutch just a bit too
much - they get angry when you talk about not needing it.

photoshop is in no way a crutch.

it's an *extremely* powerful tool that can do everything that could be
done in a darkroom more reliably and consistently, plus a whole *lot*
more.

those who bash it don't know how to use it and don't want to learn
anything new.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first
instance.

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film,

Not so much with film

quite a bit with film.

your'e forgetting the process which was part of
learning.

the process hasn't gone away.



more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable.

camras now decide for themselves what exposure and focus is needed.

they did that with film too, and do a much better job than humans can,
leaving more time for creativity.

It won't be long before even framing is an auto function set by the camera.

it already is.

Practice with a film camera if you really want to learn.

it's *much* easier to learn photography with digital.

It should be.

it is.

But if you want to learn photography rather than how to take a snap.

then you use digital

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first
instance.

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable.

People are doing a lot more with digital editing (or "doctoring" as I
call it)
than mere dodge and burn.

not really. most people do little to nothing because what comes out of
the camera is already amazingly good.

Yes the camera is doing the work.

giving the photographer more time to compose photos.

maybe they make minor adjustments to the brightness and contrast,
something film labs did without asking, and perhaps crop it a little.

I'm not sure the photographers I knew sent their films to those sort of labs.

there's no other way to see the photos, unless they develop it
themselves, which very few people did, especially colour.

But in the club I was in there was compititon where lab or professionally
processed prints were allowed.

of course they were allowed. otherwise, there wouldn't be enough
entries to have a contest.

In article , Incubus
wrote:


The problem is that digitally edited files tend to have a certain look to
them,

only if the person doesn't know what they're doing, just like what
happened in the darkroom.

particularly given the penchant people have for processing to the point that
images look unnatural.

very, very, very few such images. almost none, in fact. you have to go
out of your way to find them.

It has reached the point where a properly exposed
photo
taken straight out of camera stands out more than one that has been edited to
"perfection". This isn't just user error; it is endemic.

nonsense.

On Oct 25, 2019, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Incubus
wrote:


There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first instance.

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable.

People are doing a lot more with digital editing (or "doctoring" as I call
it) than mere dodge and burn.

not really. most people do little to nothing because what comes out of
the camera is already amazingly good.

....and yet everyday millions of digital cameras, and smartphone users produce
crappy images with every press of the shutter which no post processing will
ever fix. No ‘doctoring’ of any type will ever fix them regardless of the
perpetrator of the digital visual assault now calling it art.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-10-25, wrote:
On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):


You can always tell those who rely on their Photoshop crutch just a bit too
much - they get angry when you talk about not needing it.

Photoshop, and the various other digital editor, image processing software
are just tools each of which require a learning investment on the part of
the user. In much the same way the wet darkroom that we used in the past (...and
some continue to use today) required a learning investment. Neither the wet,
nor the digital darkroom is any guarantee that the user will be capable of
producing a photographic image that is pleasing to the viewer.

Neither of them, wet, or digital darkroom are crutches which will fix the
work of a poor photographer.

What all of them can do, regardless of whether it is a wet darkroom,
Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO PhotoLab, Affinity Photo, or even
Picasa, is allow the photographer who has learned how to properly use any of
those tools, to produce images which standout from the crowd of snapshots in
a way the Kodak Kiosk, Walmart, or Costco never could.

The problem is that digitally edited files tend to have a certain look to
them, particularly given the penchant people have for processing to the point that
images look unnatural. It has reached the point where a properly exposed photo
taken straight out of camera stands out more than one that has been edited to
"perfection". This isn't just user error; it is endemic.

As I have said, there is a learning curve for both learning fundamentals of
capturing a well composed image with any camera, film, or digital, as well as
processing either film, or digital file. Remember that even film, properly
exposed, has to endure some sort of processing. Ultimately it is whichever of
your images you might care to share whether shot with an Argus C3, a Nikon,
or a Fujifilm, or even a smartphone.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-PBnNG2T/0/2ab4c25b/O/i-PBnNG2T.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BMHK5Pb/0/30ffb209/O/i-BMHK5Pb.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ccP5nDb/0/decf0f5b/O/i-ccP5nDb.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-wzj8hGp/0/64dfb187/O/i-wzj8hGp.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck