A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old August 27th 04, 05:45 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

Colin D.


You're not, I agree with you. Though slightly disagree on the lens defect
correction point. And here's why; is not difficult optically if you just use a
better lens. So here I have a simple choice, spend a lot on a quality lens to
get the picture the way it should look naturally, or just use a good enough
lens and correct the defect with photoshop or similar application, because
after all I'm just wanting the image to look natural.

Selective desaturation is not a natural look. What about black and white? well
yes, it is a natural look for the medium.




  #72  
Old August 27th 04, 05:45 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

Colin D.


You're not, I agree with you. Though slightly disagree on the lens defect
correction point. And here's why; is not difficult optically if you just use a
better lens. So here I have a simple choice, spend a lot on a quality lens to
get the picture the way it should look naturally, or just use a good enough
lens and correct the defect with photoshop or similar application, because
after all I'm just wanting the image to look natural.

Selective desaturation is not a natural look. What about black and white? well
yes, it is a natural look for the medium.




  #75  
Old August 27th 04, 06:51 AM
Ken Nadvornick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Sabineellen" wrote:

Well I'll have to agree with Alan though, that I too object to the use

of
photoshop beyond resize, cropping, lens defect correction... and such

simple
things.


"Colin D" responded:

Correction of lens defects like barrel or pincushion distortion or lack
of sharpness is difficult optically, simple only in PS or similar
programs, so its use for SI submissions is questionable.

And, since I am here, while Brian's desaturated barn is a delightful
image, it too would be near impossible with optical printing via an
enlarger. It's not simply desaturated, it's selectively desaturated,
with only some colors dropped out.

Since the SI is, or was, primarily a film shoot-in, it seems to me
implicit that only manipulations that can be done optically should be ok
for digital images submitted to the SI.

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.


Hi Guys,

Well, if you've seen the notes which accompany my submissions, you'll see
that I'm about as much of a traditional photographic "purist" as they make.
Anyone with half an hour's worth of experience with PS would probably keel
over dead if they saw how much analog effort I put into my Old Stuff
submission. However, for me the enjoyment comes from mastering the
photographic process using real materials, not virtual materials. That's
why I gently teased Brian earlier about not needing a towel to dry off his
hands after he was done creating his submission.

But all of that aside, the fact is that the Rulz as currently written do not
explicitly state that "...only manipulations that can be done optically
should be ok..." Even if some may wish that they did. (And truth be told,
sometimes I, too, am a part of they.) To _implicitly_ draw this conclusion
is simply one individual's interpretation, which, although valid for that
person, I feel should not be used to judge another individual's efforts.

Rather, the Rulz do _explicitly_ say that "manipulations comparable to what
those done in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate." The
hand-coloring of a traditional B&W print easily falls within those bounds.
Or historically has in the past, anyway. And so, then, does a digital
simulation of that analog selective coloring process.

Perhaps the problem here is that there are few left who even remember this
technique. When I long ago headed a small commercial darkroom located near
a college with a very good photographic arts department, I made many, many
matte surface B&W prints intended solely for student use in hand-coloring.
In fact, it was one of those art students who gave me the hand-colored print
hanging in my current darkroom that I've been referring to. This
"traditional photographic process" was about as mainstream as one could be.
Maybe too much time has gone by and people's worlds have narrowed...

On the other hand, if the problem here is that some SI participants want to
change the Rulz to simply cut down or eliminate entirely any digitally
captured or manipulated images, then that is another story entirely. But
until those changes are put into place, just not liking Brian's digital
technique - which, I'm sorry, is a simulation of what can easily be
performed using "traditional photographic processes" - seems to me to be
insufficient grounds for the abuse being heaped on him for a simple photo
submission.

Finally, it's worth noting that the last sentence of the original Rulz also
states, "No big deal, just for fun." When I see someone being bullied over
something as silly as a photo, that's when I can't not step in and get
involved. (Are you listening as well, TP?)

Best regards,
Ken



  #76  
Old August 27th 04, 06:51 AM
Ken Nadvornick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Sabineellen" wrote:

Well I'll have to agree with Alan though, that I too object to the use

of
photoshop beyond resize, cropping, lens defect correction... and such

simple
things.


"Colin D" responded:

Correction of lens defects like barrel or pincushion distortion or lack
of sharpness is difficult optically, simple only in PS or similar
programs, so its use for SI submissions is questionable.

And, since I am here, while Brian's desaturated barn is a delightful
image, it too would be near impossible with optical printing via an
enlarger. It's not simply desaturated, it's selectively desaturated,
with only some colors dropped out.

Since the SI is, or was, primarily a film shoot-in, it seems to me
implicit that only manipulations that can be done optically should be ok
for digital images submitted to the SI.

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.


Hi Guys,

Well, if you've seen the notes which accompany my submissions, you'll see
that I'm about as much of a traditional photographic "purist" as they make.
Anyone with half an hour's worth of experience with PS would probably keel
over dead if they saw how much analog effort I put into my Old Stuff
submission. However, for me the enjoyment comes from mastering the
photographic process using real materials, not virtual materials. That's
why I gently teased Brian earlier about not needing a towel to dry off his
hands after he was done creating his submission.

But all of that aside, the fact is that the Rulz as currently written do not
explicitly state that "...only manipulations that can be done optically
should be ok..." Even if some may wish that they did. (And truth be told,
sometimes I, too, am a part of they.) To _implicitly_ draw this conclusion
is simply one individual's interpretation, which, although valid for that
person, I feel should not be used to judge another individual's efforts.

Rather, the Rulz do _explicitly_ say that "manipulations comparable to what
those done in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate." The
hand-coloring of a traditional B&W print easily falls within those bounds.
Or historically has in the past, anyway. And so, then, does a digital
simulation of that analog selective coloring process.

Perhaps the problem here is that there are few left who even remember this
technique. When I long ago headed a small commercial darkroom located near
a college with a very good photographic arts department, I made many, many
matte surface B&W prints intended solely for student use in hand-coloring.
In fact, it was one of those art students who gave me the hand-colored print
hanging in my current darkroom that I've been referring to. This
"traditional photographic process" was about as mainstream as one could be.
Maybe too much time has gone by and people's worlds have narrowed...

On the other hand, if the problem here is that some SI participants want to
change the Rulz to simply cut down or eliminate entirely any digitally
captured or manipulated images, then that is another story entirely. But
until those changes are put into place, just not liking Brian's digital
technique - which, I'm sorry, is a simulation of what can easily be
performed using "traditional photographic processes" - seems to me to be
insufficient grounds for the abuse being heaped on him for a simple photo
submission.

Finally, it's worth noting that the last sentence of the original Rulz also
states, "No big deal, just for fun." When I see someone being bullied over
something as silly as a photo, that's when I can't not step in and get
involved. (Are you listening as well, TP?)

Best regards,
Ken



  #77  
Old August 27th 04, 03:16 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian C. Baird wrote:


Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in


BS snipped, lookup: Shakespeare, William, keywords "Methinks"
"Thou" "Dost" "Protest" etc.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #78  
Old August 27th 04, 03:16 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian C. Baird wrote:


Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in


BS snipped, lookup: Shakespeare, William, keywords "Methinks"
"Thou" "Dost" "Protest" etc.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #79  
Old August 27th 04, 03:16 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian C. Baird wrote:


Again, as others have pointed out - the end result could be achieved in


BS snipped, lookup: Shakespeare, William, keywords "Methinks"
"Thou" "Dost" "Protest" etc.


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SI] Old stuff comments Martin Djernæs 35mm Photo Equipment 23 August 18th 04 08:30 PM
[SI] - Entrances & Exits - my comments Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 46 August 6th 04 08:29 PM
[SI] Brian's Comments Brian C. Baird 35mm Photo Equipment 10 July 22nd 04 04:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.