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

In article ,
says...
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.

You know, I could have just LIED and said I hand painted it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
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.

You know, I could have just LIED and said I hand painted it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

michelo wrote:

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


Boy I knew I'd regret it... funny thing is I was saying, "they
look to regular to be fossils."


"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."





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

michelo wrote:

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


Boy I knew I'd regret it... funny thing is I was saying, "they
look to regular to be fossils."


"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."





--
-- 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:

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.

And "Alan Browne" responded:

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.

Alan,

Please reread...

Your "On the other hand..." suggestion is exactly what I was also suggesting
above. And is also the exact same process applied in my friend's 1988 work.

As well, "Merely dragging down the saturation in photoshop is simple digital
manipulation..." may be so, but does not violate the Rulz since, as we have
now both suggested, the effect may also be produced by traditional darkroom
techniques using B&W prints and hand-coloring techniques. (And without too
great a level of difficulty, I might add.)

In fact (and I don't want to hit this nail too hard... , hand-coloring a
B&W print to achieve selective color saturation is a far easier technique to
apply in a traditional darkroom than to selectively - and convincingly -
remove, after exposure, a road sign which happens to be blocking a
photographer's main subject.

The latter is not impossible without a computer. Just far more work to
realistically accomplish in a darkroom. Having in the pre-digital past
participated in exactly this type of work professionally, I do have some
experience to assist in this judgment.

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote:

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.

And "Alan Browne" responded:

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.

Alan,

Please reread...

Your "On the other hand..." suggestion is exactly what I was also suggesting
above. And is also the exact same process applied in my friend's 1988 work.

As well, "Merely dragging down the saturation in photoshop is simple digital
manipulation..." may be so, but does not violate the Rulz since, as we have
now both suggested, the effect may also be produced by traditional darkroom
techniques using B&W prints and hand-coloring techniques. (And without too
great a level of difficulty, I might add.)

In fact (and I don't want to hit this nail too hard... , hand-coloring a
B&W print to achieve selective color saturation is a far easier technique to
apply in a traditional darkroom than to selectively - and convincingly -
remove, after exposure, a road sign which happens to be blocking a
photographer's main subject.

The latter is not impossible without a computer. Just far more work to
realistically accomplish in a darkroom. Having in the pre-digital past
participated in exactly this type of work professionally, I do have some
experience to assist in this judgment.

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:I0MWc.161$Cc.157@trnddc07...
"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




Coming from you, it's a real nice compliment! But the others don't agree
with you. You had to known what it was to appreciate. One thing we sure all
agree on, is that your photograph is beautiful.



My brother was geologist, but he got fed up of traveling in the field (the
camp, black flies and sometime polar bear) and chooses another profession. I
have a box of specimens discarded from his collection. This specimen was
interesting but dusty and plain gray. I washed it with a toothbrush and it
gained texture and some color. I got it illuminated a low angle by sunlight
to get contrast and dimension.



Michel

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:I0MWc.161$Cc.157@trnddc07...
"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




Coming from you, it's a real nice compliment! But the others don't agree
with you. You had to known what it was to appreciate. One thing we sure all
agree on, is that your photograph is beautiful.



My brother was geologist, but he got fed up of traveling in the field (the
camp, black flies and sometime polar bear) and chooses another profession. I
have a box of specimens discarded from his collection. This specimen was
interesting but dusty and plain gray. I washed it with a toothbrush and it
gained texture and some color. I got it illuminated a low angle by sunlight
to get contrast and dimension.



Michel

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

Your "On the other hand..." suggestion is exactly what I was also suggesting
above. And is also the exact same process applied in my friend's 1988 work.

As well, "Merely dragging down the saturation in photoshop is simple digital
manipulation..." may be so, but does not violate the Rulz since, as we have
now both suggested, the effect may also be produced by traditional darkroom
techniques using B&W prints and hand-coloring techniques. (And without too
great a level of difficulty, I might add.)

That's the point, "merely." What takes great skill in a non
digtital process, is "merely" dragging down color channels in
Photoshop et al. See McLeod's post for more detail.

IAC, as it is clear that no agreement will be found, I am
abandoning this sub thread.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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:

Your "On the other hand..." suggestion is exactly what I was also suggesting
above. And is also the exact same process applied in my friend's 1988 work.

As well, "Merely dragging down the saturation in photoshop is simple digital
manipulation..." may be so, but does not violate the Rulz since, as we have
now both suggested, the effect may also be produced by traditional darkroom
techniques using B&W prints and hand-coloring techniques. (And without too
great a level of difficulty, I might add.)

That's the point, "merely." What takes great skill in a non
digtital process, is "merely" dragging down color channels in
Photoshop et al. See McLeod's post for more detail.

IAC, as it is clear that no agreement will be found, I am
abandoning this sub thread.

Cheers,
Alan

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