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

Colm wrote:

I'm sure there's an extensive amount of science behind silver halide technology too, but I can just
load T-Max into my camera and get a similar highly automated and idiot-proof result. Or I can use a
digicam in B&W mode. Is there really much difference?

Stretch it further, doesn't change the reality.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article ,
says...
I snipped and ignored most of your message... read the rulz of
the SI, for that matter participate. Part of the rulz say
"extensive photoshop manipulation" ... is not particularly
welcome. This should be interpreted as minimal adjustments.
Desat is not "minimal adjustments".

Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
I snipped and ignored most of your message... read the rulz of
the SI, for that matter participate. Part of the rulz say
"extensive photoshop manipulation" ... is not particularly
welcome. This should be interpreted as minimal adjustments.
Desat is not "minimal adjustments".

Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your comments.

Alan Browne wrote:

Martin Djernaes* - http://www.pbase.com/image/32611100

This shot is very striking for its simplicity and saturated background
color. Not sure how this was lit but there appears to be a lot of
yellow on the BG and a bluish source from the left... The whole thing is
rather bizarre isn't it? A barbers chair, but no counter for the
barbers tools. An ad hoc shoeshine chair? No, doesn't have the right
foot rests... I would guess that the shot was made at some sort of
museum or exhibition, possibly a stage for a play. Strong image, bit
weird. Definitely says something about "old" style...

The chair, a barbers chair, was standing inside an old US west coast
general store, which is being remodeled for turist style shops. The
chair, apparently an old chair from the area, was standing in a still
unfinished area of the building, where hard wood floor was all redone
and the indoor light was "funny" yellow, free hanging, bulps. The "blue
light" you see from the left is the light comming through the window
just in front of the chair.

What do you, btw, think is weird about the picture? The light? It
apparent misplacement? or just something else?

Martin

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your comments.

Alan Browne wrote:

Martin Djernaes* - http://www.pbase.com/image/32611100

This shot is very striking for its simplicity and saturated background
color. Not sure how this was lit but there appears to be a lot of
yellow on the BG and a bluish source from the left... The whole thing is
rather bizarre isn't it? A barbers chair, but no counter for the
barbers tools. An ad hoc shoeshine chair? No, doesn't have the right
foot rests... I would guess that the shot was made at some sort of
museum or exhibition, possibly a stage for a play. Strong image, bit
weird. Definitely says something about "old" style...

The chair, a barbers chair, was standing inside an old US west coast
general store, which is being remodeled for turist style shops. The
chair, apparently an old chair from the area, was standing in a still
unfinished area of the building, where hard wood floor was all redone
and the indoor light was "funny" yellow, free hanging, bulps. The "blue
light" you see from the left is the light comming through the window
just in front of the chair.

What do you, btw, think is weird about the picture? The light? It
apparent misplacement? or just something else?

Martin

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

In article ,
says...
I snipped and ignored most of your message... read the rulz of
the SI, for that matter participate. Part of the rulz say
"extensive photoshop manipulation" ... is not particularly
welcome. This should be interpreted as minimal adjustments.
Desat is not "minimal adjustments".

Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

What other primary colors are there?

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.

Funny, I could have sworn you selectively changed the color.
Since the origin of the shoot-in was intended for film - having been
started in rpe35mm - and then by popular vote extended to digital
images,
I interpret 'extensive photoshop manipulation' to mean 'extensive if
done by regular opto/film-based methods'. It does *not* mean that
because Photoshop renders such things as selective colour drop-out easy
and quick to do, it's allowable to do so. If it would be extensive
manipulation in film-based printing, it's extensive, period.

IMHO, cloning out imperfections, complex masking, adding in things, etc,
are also more or less trivial in PS. Your choice of those examples is
no more valid than claiming selective desat. is trivial.

We're in danger here of forgetting or overlooking the original purpose
of the shoot-in, which IMO was to photograph subjects that illustrated
the 'mandate' - not to manufacture works of art in PS. The intention
was/is to limit after-shoot manipulation to a minimum, allowing maybe a
crop or a bit of burning-in (if necessary) to produce the image the
photog had in mind when he took the shot.

Besides which, any material modification of an image in PS can be
likened to the old farmer's remark when he saw a heavily made-up young
lady: "If she needs that much fertilizer, the soil can't be much good."

Colin D.

Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

In article ,
says...
I snipped and ignored most of your message... read the rulz of
the SI, for that matter participate. Part of the rulz say
"extensive photoshop manipulation" ... is not particularly
welcome. This should be interpreted as minimal adjustments.
Desat is not "minimal adjustments".

Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

What other primary colors are there?

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.

Funny, I could have sworn you selectively changed the color.
Since the origin of the shoot-in was intended for film - having been
started in rpe35mm - and then by popular vote extended to digital
images,
I interpret 'extensive photoshop manipulation' to mean 'extensive if
done by regular opto/film-based methods'. It does *not* mean that
because Photoshop renders such things as selective colour drop-out easy
and quick to do, it's allowable to do so. If it would be extensive
manipulation in film-based printing, it's extensive, period.

IMHO, cloning out imperfections, complex masking, adding in things, etc,
are also more or less trivial in PS. Your choice of those examples is
no more valid than claiming selective desat. is trivial.

We're in danger here of forgetting or overlooking the original purpose
of the shoot-in, which IMO was to photograph subjects that illustrated
the 'mandate' - not to manufacture works of art in PS. The intention
was/is to limit after-shoot manipulation to a minimum, allowing maybe a
crop or a bit of burning-in (if necessary) to produce the image the
photog had in mind when he took the shot.

Besides which, any material modification of an image in PS can be
likened to the old farmer's remark when he saw a heavily made-up young
lady: "If she needs that much fertilizer, the soil can't be much good."

Colin D.

Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.

In article ,
says...

Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

What other primary colors are there?

Purplesaurus.

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.

Funny, I could have sworn you selectively changed the color.

No, I desaturated the color - green less so than others. If I wanted
the sky pink, I would have made it pink.

Since the origin of the shoot-in was intended for film - having been
started in rpe35mm - and then by popular vote extended to digital
images,
I interpret 'extensive photoshop manipulation' to mean 'extensive if
done by regular opto/film-based methods'. It does *not* mean that
because Photoshop renders such things as selective colour drop-out easy
and quick to do, it's allowable to do so. If it would be extensive
manipulation in film-based printing, it's extensive, period.

I think you need to re-read the mandate.

"What's allowed. This is the hard part. I would suggest that images
taken with 35mm or similar cameras are most appropriate. Since we're
focused on pictures here, extensive digital manipulation would probably
not be looked upon with favor. Manipulations comparable to what those
done in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate."

Since the effect I made could be done with painting a black and white
image, fading a print, etc. etc. I don't think I'm getting even close to
being outside "traditional photographic processes." Others have made
this point more eloquently that I, but the fact remains images with the
same effect as mine have been created long before the advent of
Photoshop.

"You will NOT be lynched for using digital. As stated originally, post-
processing beyond the traditional darkroom techniques may be frowned
on."

Again, I'm not taking my mouse and making a gold-plated butterfly
landing on the moon. I'm taking a simple picture and giving it a
different feel. I don't see why using Photoshop is any different than
any other method - I got the end result I wanted using the tools at
hand. Photoshop can be used to make really gaudy, ugly images
(http://www.pbase.com/image/25091764) or it can be used a tool to
replace traditional darkroom methods. I clearly fall in the latter
category.

IMHO, cloning out imperfections, complex masking, adding in things, etc,
are also more or less trivial in PS. Your choice of those examples is
no more valid than claiming selective desat. is trivial.

You fall for the trap - all of those operations can be achieved in the
traditional darkroom. To do them right (Photoshop, darkroom or
otherwise) takes a long time and certainly isn't trivial - undo button
or not.

We're in danger here of forgetting or overlooking the original purpose
of the shoot-in, which IMO was to photograph subjects that illustrated
the 'mandate' - not to manufacture works of art in PS. The intention

I dare you to show me how I "manufactured" my image and how it would
even come close to being a "work of art."

was/is to limit after-shoot manipulation to a minimum, allowing maybe a
crop or a bit of burning-in (if necessary) to produce the image the
photog had in mind when he took the shot.

Again, you need to re-read the mandate.

Besides which, any material modification of an image in PS can be
likened to the old farmer's remark when he saw a heavily made-up young
lady: "If she needs that much fertilizer, the soil can't be much good."

Colin D.

Which is your opinion and I respect that. Just don't tell me what I can
and cannot do with my images and still be within the bounds of the
mandate when it's fairly clear I'm not stomping on sacred ground.
http://www.pbase.com/image/26464438
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...

Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

What other primary colors are there?

Purplesaurus.

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.

Funny, I could have sworn you selectively changed the color.

No, I desaturated the color - green less so than others. If I wanted
the sky pink, I would have made it pink.

Since the origin of the shoot-in was intended for film - having been
started in rpe35mm - and then by popular vote extended to digital
images,
I interpret 'extensive photoshop manipulation' to mean 'extensive if
done by regular opto/film-based methods'. It does *not* mean that
because Photoshop renders such things as selective colour drop-out easy
and quick to do, it's allowable to do so. If it would be extensive
manipulation in film-based printing, it's extensive, period.

I think you need to re-read the mandate.

"What's allowed. This is the hard part. I would suggest that images
taken with 35mm or similar cameras are most appropriate. Since we're
focused on pictures here, extensive digital manipulation would probably
not be looked upon with favor. Manipulations comparable to what those
done in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate."

Since the effect I made could be done with painting a black and white
image, fading a print, etc. etc. I don't think I'm getting even close to
being outside "traditional photographic processes." Others have made
this point more eloquently that I, but the fact remains images with the
same effect as mine have been created long before the advent of
Photoshop.

"You will NOT be lynched for using digital. As stated originally, post-
processing beyond the traditional darkroom techniques may be frowned
on."

Again, I'm not taking my mouse and making a gold-plated butterfly
landing on the moon. I'm taking a simple picture and giving it a
different feel. I don't see why using Photoshop is any different than
any other method - I got the end result I wanted using the tools at
hand. Photoshop can be used to make really gaudy, ugly images
(http://www.pbase.com/image/25091764) or it can be used a tool to
replace traditional darkroom methods. I clearly fall in the latter
category.

IMHO, cloning out imperfections, complex masking, adding in things, etc,
are also more or less trivial in PS. Your choice of those examples is
no more valid than claiming selective desat. is trivial.

You fall for the trap - all of those operations can be achieved in the
traditional darkroom. To do them right (Photoshop, darkroom or
otherwise) takes a long time and certainly isn't trivial - undo button
or not.

We're in danger here of forgetting or overlooking the original purpose
of the shoot-in, which IMO was to photograph subjects that illustrated
the 'mandate' - not to manufacture works of art in PS. The intention

I dare you to show me how I "manufactured" my image and how it would
even come close to being a "work of art."

was/is to limit after-shoot manipulation to a minimum, allowing maybe a
crop or a bit of burning-in (if necessary) to produce the image the
photog had in mind when he took the shot.

Again, you need to re-read the mandate.

Besides which, any material modification of an image in PS can be
likened to the old farmer's remark when he saw a heavily made-up young
lady: "If she needs that much fertilizer, the soil can't be much good."

Colin D.

Which is your opinion and I respect that. Just don't tell me what I can
and cannot do with my images and still be within the bounds of the
mandate when it's fairly clear I'm not stomping on sacred ground.
http://www.pbase.com/image/26464438
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...

I snipped and ignored most of your message... read the rulz of
the SI, for that matter participate. Part of the rulz say
"extensive photoshop manipulation" ... is not particularly
welcome. This should be interpreted as minimal adjustments.
Desat is not "minimal adjustments".


Yes it is. I've stated over and over that the amount of desaturation I
did was limited to the blues and reds, and some greens. I accomplished
the effect I wanted in about 5 minutes.

Extensive Photoshop work, in my opinion, is complex masks, cloning out
imperfections and/or cloning in things that weren't there. Besides the
color, I changed nothing in the image.


Okay, I promise this is my last post on the subject.

However, let's be rational he

-So you take a pitchur from the comfort of your drivers seat

-You claim that your 5 minutes work in photoshop is somehow
related to a traditional darkroom technqiue "...is complex masks,
cloning out imperfections ..." etc. yada-doo-doo,

We're supposed to believe that in your little photographic
world you would have done all that in a darkroom to quote:
"achieve the effect I wanted" ...

....but you were too lazy to get out of the car and make a proper
photograph in the first place?

BWahhahahahahahahaahahahaha.

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--