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

In article ,
says...
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.

Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in
a multitude of ways. Just because I happen to desaturate in PS (which
is the easiest way) doesn't mean the end result is invalid. I mean,
should I undertake some arduous task for the sake of your fears of
digital manipulation when the end result will be the same - or inferior?

It doesn't make sense to bicker about Photoshop and digital manipulation
in this day and age - it's here, it's useful, and as long as I'm not
grafting Richard Nixon's head onto a supermodel's body and pretending
it's a "real" photo, it's still photography.

Furthermore, I take great offense to your statement that I "need"
Photoshop to produce images for the mandate. The part of my image that
meets the mandate is the subject matter - the barn. If I choose to use
the tools at hand to give the photo a different interpretation (again,
without using Richard Nixon and Paulina Perskova) that isn't a problem -
it's my image and the final result is determined by me. From the
countless replies you made about this topic, I think the problem
actually lies in your inability to reconcile Photoshop with traditional
film methods. That certainly isn't my *problem.*
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
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.

Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in
a multitude of ways. Just because I happen to desaturate in PS (which
is the easiest way) doesn't mean the end result is invalid. I mean,
should I undertake some arduous task for the sake of your fears of
digital manipulation when the end result will be the same - or inferior?

It doesn't make sense to bicker about Photoshop and digital manipulation
in this day and age - it's here, it's useful, and as long as I'm not
grafting Richard Nixon's head onto a supermodel's body and pretending
it's a "real" photo, it's still photography.

Furthermore, I take great offense to your statement that I "need"
Photoshop to produce images for the mandate. The part of my image that
meets the mandate is the subject matter - the barn. If I choose to use
the tools at hand to give the photo a different interpretation (again,
without using Richard Nixon and Paulina Perskova) that isn't a problem -
it's my image and the final result is determined by me. From the
countless replies you made about this topic, I think the problem
actually lies in your inability to reconcile Photoshop with traditional
film methods. That certainly isn't my *problem.*
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:13:40 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

In article ,
says...
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.

Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in
a multitude of ways. Just because I happen to desaturate in PS (which
is the easiest way) doesn't mean the end result is invalid. I mean,
should I undertake some arduous task for the sake of your fears of
digital manipulation when the end result will be the same - or inferior?

It doesn't make sense to bicker about Photoshop and digital manipulation
in this day and age - it's here, it's useful, and as long as I'm not
grafting Richard Nixon's head onto a supermodel's body and pretending
it's a "real" photo, it's still photography.

Furthermore, I take great offense to your statement that I "need"
Photoshop to produce images for the mandate. The part of my image that
meets the mandate is the subject matter - the barn. If I choose to use
the tools at hand to give the photo a different interpretation (again,
without using Richard Nixon and Paulina Perskova) that isn't a problem -
it's my image and the final result is determined by me. From the
countless replies you made about this topic, I think the problem
actually lies in your inability to reconcile Photoshop with traditional
film methods. That certainly isn't my *problem.*

Heck, had you stopped the car, got out and made a real effort to
capture a good photo this whole thread would have never been born.

Is it safe to assume you spent 10 seconds capturing the picture then
30 minutes in PS trying to make it *good*?

RP©

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:13:40 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

In article ,
says...
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.

Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in
a multitude of ways. Just because I happen to desaturate in PS (which
is the easiest way) doesn't mean the end result is invalid. I mean,
should I undertake some arduous task for the sake of your fears of
digital manipulation when the end result will be the same - or inferior?

It doesn't make sense to bicker about Photoshop and digital manipulation
in this day and age - it's here, it's useful, and as long as I'm not
grafting Richard Nixon's head onto a supermodel's body and pretending
it's a "real" photo, it's still photography.

Furthermore, I take great offense to your statement that I "need"
Photoshop to produce images for the mandate. The part of my image that
meets the mandate is the subject matter - the barn. If I choose to use
the tools at hand to give the photo a different interpretation (again,
without using Richard Nixon and Paulina Perskova) that isn't a problem -
it's my image and the final result is determined by me. From the
countless replies you made about this topic, I think the problem
actually lies in your inability to reconcile Photoshop with traditional
film methods. That certainly isn't my *problem.*

Heck, had you stopped the car, got out and made a real effort to
capture a good photo this whole thread would have never been born.

Is it safe to assume you spent 10 seconds capturing the picture then
30 minutes in PS trying to make it *good*?

RP©

"Ken Nadvornick" originally wrote:

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

"Alan Browne" responded:

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.

"Brian C. Baird" then remarked:

But the point was never to disallow all manipulation.

"Alan Browne" again responded:

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.

Alan,

I realize that this isn't exactly "abandoning the subthread," but
unfortunately Brian is correct. As I understand it, the ability to produce
photos "without PS manipulation" is neither a problem for him or a
prerequisite for his participation in the SI. To imply that it is either
could be construed at best as elitist or... well, I leave the "at worst"
case to your imagination.

To wit, regarding digital manipulations the SI Rulz explicitly state the
following:

"Since we're focussed 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."

This is quite clear and directly implies the following:

(1) Digital manipulations which directly simulate traditional darkroom
manipulations are well within the bounds of appropriateness for the purposes
of the SI.

(2) The selective application by hand of colors (such as Marshall's Photo
Oils or Pencils, or even crayons) to a traditional darkroom B&W print in
order to achieve selective desaturation of an original color subject is a
valid traditional darkroom technique.

Even you have previously implied so yourself when you stated earlier, "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."

(And again, I have a beautiful example of this very technique hanging in my
darkroom as I write this. I could scan and post it and you would be amazed
at how similar in overall color appearance it is to Brian's digitally
partially-desaturated SI entry.)

(3) Brian's use of PS (see #1, above) to digitally manipulate an image in
order to achieve a selective color desaturation effect (see #2, above) is
therefore well within the bounds of appropriateness for the purposes of the
SI.

(4) And - most importantly - regarding the "spirit" of the Rulz, I again
quote from those very Rulz:

"Once again, these are rulz, which are similar to but different than rules."

We would all be well served, I think, to keep this last implication mind...

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" originally wrote:

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

"Alan Browne" responded:

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.

"Brian C. Baird" then remarked:

But the point was never to disallow all manipulation.

"Alan Browne" again responded:

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.

Alan,

I realize that this isn't exactly "abandoning the subthread," but
unfortunately Brian is correct. As I understand it, the ability to produce
photos "without PS manipulation" is neither a problem for him or a
prerequisite for his participation in the SI. To imply that it is either
could be construed at best as elitist or... well, I leave the "at worst"
case to your imagination.

To wit, regarding digital manipulations the SI Rulz explicitly state the
following:

"Since we're focussed 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."

This is quite clear and directly implies the following:

(1) Digital manipulations which directly simulate traditional darkroom
manipulations are well within the bounds of appropriateness for the purposes
of the SI.

(2) The selective application by hand of colors (such as Marshall's Photo
Oils or Pencils, or even crayons) to a traditional darkroom B&W print in
order to achieve selective desaturation of an original color subject is a
valid traditional darkroom technique.

Even you have previously implied so yourself when you stated earlier, "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."

(And again, I have a beautiful example of this very technique hanging in my
darkroom as I write this. I could scan and post it and you would be amazed
at how similar in overall color appearance it is to Brian's digitally
partially-desaturated SI entry.)

(3) Brian's use of PS (see #1, above) to digitally manipulate an image in
order to achieve a selective color desaturation effect (see #2, above) is
therefore well within the bounds of appropriateness for the purposes of the
SI.

(4) And - most importantly - regarding the "spirit" of the Rulz, I again
quote from those very Rulz:

"Once again, these are rulz, which are similar to but different than rules."

We would all be well served, I think, to keep this last implication mind...

Ken

Hey Brian,

In my previous it may have sounded like I didn't like the photo
you submitted, this is not the case.

http://www.pbase.com/image/32611107

The desaturation is a nice touch. Hard to believe you shot this from a
car.

RP©

Hey Brian,

In my previous it may have sounded like I didn't like the photo
you submitted, this is not the case.

http://www.pbase.com/image/32611107

The desaturation is a nice touch. Hard to believe you shot this from a
car.

RP©

In article ,
says...
Heck, had you stopped the car, got out and made a real effort to
capture a good photo this whole thread would have never been born.

Wasn't the whole point of the shoot-in supposed to be constructive
criticism? Thanks for defeating that.

Is it safe to assume you spent 10 seconds capturing the picture then
30 minutes in PS trying to make it *good*?

Please, more like 1/250th of a second capturing the photo, 1 minute in
Photoshop. Give me some credit!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
Heck, had you stopped the car, got out and made a real effort to
capture a good photo this whole thread would have never been born.

Wasn't the whole point of the shoot-in supposed to be constructive
criticism? Thanks for defeating that.

Is it safe to assume you spent 10 seconds capturing the picture then
30 minutes in PS trying to make it *good*?

Please, more like 1/250th of a second capturing the photo, 1 minute in
Photoshop. Give me some credit!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/