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

Alan Browne wrote:
Brian Fane - http://www.pbase.com/image/32611105

While you were in WA mode you should have really closed in to
remove the headstone on the lower right. I'm guessing you used
slide film here or a pretty good digi as the shadow side on the
left is almost dead in detail. The blasted blues and the slight
vignetting indicate a polarizer. Somehow the notion of old
doesn't carry here because the scene is so fresh looking, a
pleasant day, fresh. Good shot but I would have gotten in even
closer to the stone.

Thanks for the comments. I ended up framing it like that because of
some stuff on the left side that I didn't want. I was also trying to
keep the text legible, to explain why it was "old stuff", so I
couldn't get much further to the left. Could have probably cropped
it to remove the stone on the right, after I scanned it.

This shot was taken on Velvia 50, with a polorizer; you nailed it
on your guesses. I actually added a little bit of contrast after
I scanned it, but not much. I waffled on which version to submit,
but liked the contrastier version more, so...

Vignetting wasn't intentional, but I kinda liked the look, so I
left it in. Someone else had commented on the brown splotch --
I think they've got a mole problem there.

I haven't submitted many images to the Shoot-in, and this is the
first color image. Normally, I'd have done something like this
with TMax, but I had a 36-shot roll of Velvia in the camera,
and was 5 frames into it and really wanted to get them processed.

Thanks again for the comments!

Alan Browne wrote:
Brian Fane - http://www.pbase.com/image/32611105

While you were in WA mode you should have really closed in to
remove the headstone on the lower right. I'm guessing you used
slide film here or a pretty good digi as the shadow side on the
left is almost dead in detail. The blasted blues and the slight
vignetting indicate a polarizer. Somehow the notion of old
doesn't carry here because the scene is so fresh looking, a
pleasant day, fresh. Good shot but I would have gotten in even
closer to the stone.

Thanks for the comments. I ended up framing it like that because of
some stuff on the left side that I didn't want. I was also trying to
keep the text legible, to explain why it was "old stuff", so I
couldn't get much further to the left. Could have probably cropped
it to remove the stone on the right, after I scanned it.

This shot was taken on Velvia 50, with a polorizer; you nailed it
on your guesses. I actually added a little bit of contrast after
I scanned it, but not much. I waffled on which version to submit,
but liked the contrastier version more, so...

Vignetting wasn't intentional, but I kinda liked the look, so I
left it in. Someone else had commented on the brown splotch --
I think they've got a mole problem there.

I haven't submitted many images to the Shoot-in, and this is the
first color image. Normally, I'd have done something like this
with TMax, but I had a 36-shot roll of Velvia in the camera,
and was 5 frames into it and really wanted to get them processed.

Thanks again for the comments!

"Alan Browne" wrote:

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.

Pity... but your prerogative.

No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

Regards,
Ken

"Alan Browne" wrote:

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.

Pity... but your prerogative.

No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

Regards,
Ken

Ken Nadvornick wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:


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.


Pity... but your prerogative.

No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

The point? The point is really making photographs without
manipulation. I've done so at least once in the SI and declared
it as -outside-of-rulz- for that, I didn't hem and haw and try to
say it was in bounds. Desaturating is manipulation. Period.



--
-- 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:


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.


Pity... but your prerogative.

No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

The point? The point is really making photographs without
manipulation. I've done so at least once in the SI and declared
it as -outside-of-rulz- for that, I didn't hem and haw and try to
say it was in bounds. Desaturating is manipulation. Period.



--
-- 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...
No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

The point? The point is really making photographs without
manipulation. I've done so at least once in the SI and declared
it as -outside-of-rulz- for that, I didn't hem and haw and try to
say it was in bounds. Desaturating is manipulation. Period.

But the point was never to disallow all manipulation.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

The point? The point is really making photographs without
manipulation. I've done so at least once in the SI and declared
it as -outside-of-rulz- for that, I didn't hem and haw and try to
say it was in bounds. Desaturating is manipulation. Period.

But the point was never to disallow all manipulation.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...

No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

The point? The point is really making photographs without
manipulation. I've done so at least once in the SI and declared
it as -outside-of-rulz- for that, I didn't hem and haw and try to
say it was in bounds. Desaturating is manipulation. Period.


But the point was never to disallow all manipulation.

It really does not matter to me, beyond pointing it out. In the
SI you can send in scans of your latest crayola project for all I
care, and when I point out that that doesn't fit the rulz you can
justify it anyway you want... If you're not _able_ to produce
photos that meet the mandate without PS manipulation, then that
is really your problem, not mine.

See McLeod's reply to your claim that desat of color in a
darkroom is as trivial as you believe. It certainly is trivial
in PS.

Cheers,
Alan.

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

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...

No hard feelings, but I sense you missed the point here.

The point? The point is really making photographs without
manipulation. I've done so at least once in the SI and declared
it as -outside-of-rulz- for that, I didn't hem and haw and try to
say it was in bounds. Desaturating is manipulation. Period.


But the point was never to disallow all manipulation.

It really does not matter to me, beyond pointing it out. In the
SI you can send in scans of your latest crayola project for all I
care, and when I point out that that doesn't fit the rulz you can
justify it anyway you want... If you're not _able_ to produce
photos that meet the mandate without PS manipulation, then that
is really your problem, not mine.

See McLeod's reply to your claim that desat of color in a
darkroom is as trivial as you believe. It certainly is trivial
in PS.

Cheers,
Alan.

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