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

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:24:12 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Personally I don't believe that desaturation is a valid photoshop
technique to invoke under the rulz. Even the very few people
proficient in home developing IN COLOR would have a hard time
achieving this level of desat. Just too much, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

In printing it would be a relatively easy desaturation - it's called
nixing the magenta and cutting back the cyan and yellow a bit.

Colour printing is a balancing act. "Nixing" the magenta makes the
print green. Cutting back cyan in the print makes it red and removing
yellow makes it blue. This is with a minilab processor.

With an enlarger cyan filtration isn't even normally used because it
affects the print exposure too much, so the yellow and magenta
filtration are usually adjusted equal amounts used to change red/cyan.

Cutting back on one filtration means your print becomes the opposite
colour, not less colourful.

Desaturating is not a technique I have ever seen in a colour darkroom.
I have seen a lot of hand coloured B&W prints that would fit the bill.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:24:12 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Personally I don't believe that desaturation is a valid photoshop
technique to invoke under the rulz. Even the very few people
proficient in home developing IN COLOR would have a hard time
achieving this level of desat. Just too much, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

In printing it would be a relatively easy desaturation - it's called
nixing the magenta and cutting back the cyan and yellow a bit.

Colour printing is a balancing act. "Nixing" the magenta makes the
print green. Cutting back cyan in the print makes it red and removing
yellow makes it blue. This is with a minilab processor.

With an enlarger cyan filtration isn't even normally used because it
affects the print exposure too much, so the yellow and magenta
filtration are usually adjusted equal amounts used to change red/cyan.

Cutting back on one filtration means your print becomes the opposite
colour, not less colourful.

Desaturating is not a technique I have ever seen in a colour darkroom.
I have seen a lot of hand coloured B&W prints that would fit the bill.

In article ,
says...
Likewise, why bother nitpicking over selective desaturating in
Photoshop?

'cos it's a cliche :-p

That's the best arguement I've heard. It is cliche!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , cerveza61
@sympatico.ca says...
Desaturating is not a technique I have ever seen in a colour darkroom.
I have seen a lot of hand coloured B&W prints that would fit the bill.

Well, I was trying to go for something in between. I've seen prints
(lithos) with the same effect, but then again, with printing you can
indeed lower the effective saturation by limiting the screen or using
altogether different inks.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"Alan Browne" wrote:

Fine. Go do it C-41 and tell us how well you do.

Hi again Alan,

Another traditional photographic approach to accomplishing Brian's Photoshop
effect would be to expose the scene using B&W film, then selectively
hand-color the resulting B&W print using Marshall's Photo Oils. The master
set of these oils contains 46 distinct colors, I believe.

The idea here being that instead of selectively desaturating a color
photograph using digital tools, one would be selectively saturating a
non-color photograph using analog tools. The two final results could very
well be almost indistinguishable, especially after the analog version was
scanned for SI submission.

I have just such a hand-colored photograph framed and hanging in my
darkroom. It was created and given to me by a friend in 1988 and the colors
are as beautifully subtle today as the day she applied them.

I would consider her work to easily fit within the SI Rulz.

Ken

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:16:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Michelo - http://www.pbase.com/image/32611114

Strangely like Al. D's shot in tone. A lot more "stuff" here,
modern fossilization of debris ... possibly near an abandoned
semi demolished site? Some of the artifacts look like old fuses
from pre-breaker days and bits of other scrap. Composition
doesn't hold the eye for very long and like Al's shot, the colors
are a bit dull, 'thought he gold/yellow colors against the
white-grey grit are appealing.


You are way off; those are crinoids ossicles found in Trenton limestone
dating from Ordovician (450 millions years).
Thanks for commenting.
Michel

"Most fossil crinoids lived attached to the sea-floor by a flexible stem,
which may be either cemented to the sea-floor by the crinoid, or may have a
root-like system buried into the sediment. Fossil crinoids have stems
ranging in size from a few centimetres in length to as much as 21 metres (70
feet). The stem is either circular or pentagonal (five-sided) in section and
composed of numerous disc-like plates, each one usually measuring around 1
centimetre (0.4 inches) across. At the top of this stem is the main part of
the animal, a cup-shaped head (called the calyx) to which arms are attached.
The calyx and the arms together are sometimes referred to as the crown.
There are usually five arms (or more often a multiple of five), and the arms
may be repeatedly branched. The arms carry fine pinnules which are used to
filter small food particles from the water. Grooves in the arms channel food
to the mouth, which is located in the centre of the calyx. Normally soon
after death the entire skeleton of the crinoid disintegrates into the small
separate plates (called ossicles). These ossicles are composed of a form of
calcium carbonate known as calcite."

"michelo" wrote:

You are way off; those are crinoids ossicles found in Trenton limestone
dating from Ordovician (450 millions years).
Thanks for commenting.
Michel

"Most fossil crinoids lived attached to the sea-floor by a flexible stem,
which may be either cemented to the sea-floor by the crinoid, or may have
a
root-like system buried into the sediment. Fossil crinoids have stems
ranging in size from a few centimetres in length to as much as 21 metres
(70
feet). The stem is either circular or pentagonal (five-sided) in section
and
composed of numerous disc-like plates, each one usually measuring around 1
centimetre (0.4 inches) across. At the top of this stem is the main part
of
the animal, a cup-shaped head (called the calyx) to which arms are
attached.
The calyx and the arms together are sometimes referred to as the crown.
There are usually five arms (or more often a multiple of five), and the
arms
may be repeatedly branched. The arms carry fine pinnules which are used to
filter small food particles from the water. Grooves in the arms channel
food
to the mouth, which is located in the centre of the calyx. Normally soon
after death the entire skeleton of the crinoid disintegrates into the
small
separate plates (called ossicles). These ossicles are composed of a form
of
calcium carbonate known as calcite."

Hi 'michelo':

I must admit to you that yours was easily my favorite photograph of the
mandate. As an ex-field geologist (waaay ex-, I might add I was
fortunate to immediately recognize the fossilized crinoid fragments and so
was able to appreciate them for what they really were. The subtle,
real-world colors further enhance your image, as this is exactly how nature
most often looks.

For anyone who has actually been out in the field and encountered fossilized
biological specimens in situ, your composition well and accurately portrays
the seeming randomness of their occurrence. But, of course, with the
benefit of a bit of background knowledge about them, part of their
magnificent beauty lies in the fact that they are not quite as random as one
might at first imagine. And the story they tell by their silent witness can
be humbling. It was this aspect of the image, I think, that most resonated
with me.

Looking at your photo, I was reminded of my many younger hours spent out in
the deserts of northern Nevada (USA), looking through my Hastings triplet
hand magnifier at similar fossils, rocks and minerals. In fact, I still
have a few small slabs of personally collected rock up in my attic
containing some crinoid stems and one fragmented calyx...

A fine photograph, well executed. Many thanks for the memories!

Ken

"michelo" wrote:

You are way off; those are crinoids ossicles found in Trenton limestone
dating from Ordovician (450 millions years).
Thanks for commenting.
Michel

"Most fossil crinoids lived attached to the sea-floor by a flexible stem,
which may be either cemented to the sea-floor by the crinoid, or may have
a
root-like system buried into the sediment. Fossil crinoids have stems
ranging in size from a few centimetres in length to as much as 21 metres
(70
feet). The stem is either circular or pentagonal (five-sided) in section
and
composed of numerous disc-like plates, each one usually measuring around 1
centimetre (0.4 inches) across. At the top of this stem is the main part
of
the animal, a cup-shaped head (called the calyx) to which arms are
attached.
The calyx and the arms together are sometimes referred to as the crown.
There are usually five arms (or more often a multiple of five), and the
arms
may be repeatedly branched. The arms carry fine pinnules which are used to
filter small food particles from the water. Grooves in the arms channel
food
to the mouth, which is located in the centre of the calyx. Normally soon
after death the entire skeleton of the crinoid disintegrates into the
small
separate plates (called ossicles). These ossicles are composed of a form
of
calcium carbonate known as calcite."

Hi 'michelo':

I must admit to you that yours was easily my favorite photograph of the
mandate. As an ex-field geologist (waaay ex-, I might add I was
fortunate to immediately recognize the fossilized crinoid fragments and so
was able to appreciate them for what they really were. The subtle,
real-world colors further enhance your image, as this is exactly how nature
most often looks.

For anyone who has actually been out in the field and encountered fossilized
biological specimens in situ, your composition well and accurately portrays
the seeming randomness of their occurrence. But, of course, with the
benefit of a bit of background knowledge about them, part of their
magnificent beauty lies in the fact that they are not quite as random as one
might at first imagine. And the story they tell by their silent witness can
be humbling. It was this aspect of the image, I think, that most resonated
with me.

Looking at your photo, I was reminded of my many younger hours spent out in
the deserts of northern Nevada (USA), looking through my Hastings triplet
hand magnifier at similar fossils, rocks and minerals. In fact, I still
have a few small slabs of personally collected rock up in my attic
containing some crinoid stems and one fragmented calyx...

A fine photograph, well executed. Many thanks for the memories!

Ken

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote:


Fine. Go do it C-41 and tell us how well you do.


Hi again Alan,

Another traditional photographic approach to accomplishing Brian's Photoshop
effect would be to expose the scene using B&W film, then selectively
hand-color the resulting B&W print using Marshall's Photo Oils. The master
set of these oils contains 46 distinct colors, I believe.

The idea here being that instead of selectively desaturating a color
photograph using digital tools, one would be selectively saturating a
non-color photograph using analog tools. The two final results could very
well be almost indistinguishable, especially after the analog version was
scanned for SI submission.

I have just such a hand-colored photograph framed and hanging in my
darkroom. It was created and given to me by a friend in 1988 and the colors
are as beautifully subtle today as the day she applied them.

I would consider her work to easily fit within the SI Rulz.

I wouldn't. On the other hand if Brian printed the image in B&W
and then hand colored it, and then scanned that result, that
would be something else. Merely dragging down the saturation in
photoshop is simple digital manipulation, IMO.

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

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote:


Fine. Go do it C-41 and tell us how well you do.


Hi again Alan,

Another traditional photographic approach to accomplishing Brian's Photoshop
effect would be to expose the scene using B&W film, then selectively
hand-color the resulting B&W print using Marshall's Photo Oils. The master
set of these oils contains 46 distinct colors, I believe.

The idea here being that instead of selectively desaturating a color
photograph using digital tools, one would be selectively saturating a
non-color photograph using analog tools. The two final results could very
well be almost indistinguishable, especially after the analog version was
scanned for SI submission.

I have just such a hand-colored photograph framed and hanging in my
darkroom. It was created and given to me by a friend in 1988 and the colors
are as beautifully subtle today as the day she applied them.

I would consider her work to easily fit within the SI Rulz.

I wouldn't. On the other hand if Brian printed the image in B&W
and then hand colored it, and then scanned that result, that
would be something else. Merely dragging down the saturation in
photoshop is simple digital manipulation, IMO.

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