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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
Elucidate? I am not going to publish pages and pages of Photoshop tutorial here, and I’ve explained why. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on what a twenty-something photo student is looking at today, and I’ve gone into this in some detail. If you want to discuss this, but you insist on excluding the issue of after-capture software, then I’m afraid you are the one who is ducking the issue. After-capture software is hard-put to do out-of focus in most cases. Consider a tree branch with leaves, in foreground, versus a distant background. Explain how to do it easily in Photoshop. Doug McDonald |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
On 1/17/2011 12:29 PM VOR-DME spake thus:
In article , says... by golly, what wonderful spin to duck the issue rather than address it. More and more red herrings. You remind me of the Woody Allen joke of a man creating a libel suit against the publisher of his own autobiography! I created this thread, which was intended to be a lighthearted commentary on a situation in which I found humor, and now I find myself being accused of "ducking the issue" and "red herrings"! Good Lord! I am really at a complete loss as to what you are on about - perhaps another reader could step in and set this straight? Elucidate? I am not going to publish pages and pages of Photoshop tutorial here, and I’ve explained why. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on what a twenty-something photo student is looking at today, and I’ve gone into this in some detail. If you want to discuss this, but you insist on excluding the issue of after-capture software, then I’m afraid you are the one who is ducking the issue. Well, ahem, if I can just step in here for a second: I think you put it pretty well when you said that you and Lawrence were having two different conversations here. I think that's what they call "talking at cross purposes", right? Lawrence apparently wants to play by a certain set of rules here which you are choosing to ignore. Fair enough on both sides, and ultimately no harm, no foul. He wants you to tell him how you can make the images he describes with a phone camera but with "no after images manipulation", to quote from his most recent reply. I guess I have to side with you he basically, who gives a ****? The results can be easily gotten with post-capture processing, so the whole question of whether this device (phone camera) can actually *capture* such images, unassisted by subsequent software manipulation, is exceedingly academic. Especially to those 20-somethings you most risibly describe, which as I saw it was the whole point of your point in the first place. I was also going to say that my own tendency is to bristle at such suggestions that you make, that they (the wet-behind-the-ears students) can get the same result with their stupid phone cameras as someone behind the ground glass of a view camera. But even if you believe, as I do, that film is superior in many respects to crappy digital processes, I have to agree with your analysis. In fact, one can look at it this way: given that images produced on film do have inherent limitations and artifacts as you described, that have shaped our perception over the last century or so, both of the world itself and of captured images of that world, isn't it a bit presumptuous to expect present-day photography students to artificially force themselves into the same constraints imposed by a view camera? And furthermore, wouldn't that actually be a further insult to classical photography, or at best a back-handed compliment, by making digital image-making into a perverted simulacrum of ancient wet processes? As much as I love antique photography, and as much as I despise much of what passes for "art" nowadays, especially WRT digital photography, I realize that this is the future, and it's as futile fighting it as it is trying to stop earthquakes. -- Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet: To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign that he is not going to hear any rebuttals. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
On 1/17/2011 3:37 PM, VOR-DME wrote:
In , lid says... After-capture software is hard-put to do out-of focus in most cases. Consider a tree branch with leaves, in foreground, versus a distant background. Explain how to do it easily in Photoshop. I am really an old-timer and a large-format nut, not a Photoshop wizard, but this particular challenge is actually very well managed, particularly in the later versions of Photoshop. You create an Alpha-channel and apply a gradient to it. After this you use the Photoshop lens blur filter. The advantage is that you have control over all the parameters. The placement of the gradient, the extent of the blur, etc. It is fair to say that this level of control exceeds the amount of control we have using large-format camera parameters by a good margin. Huh? How do you distinguish between the edges of the leaves, which must remain sharp, and the background, which needs to blur? Even if you do (say green leaves and red background) how do you get the blur function to blur the red into the just barely blurred slightly out of focus leaves, so it looks right? I have PS CS2 and I sure can't do it. I'm not talking about one whole area of the picture close, and another far. Except for the edge between them, that can be done well. This is not about art ... its about technique. A phone camera if of course capable of all the art that an artist can do with it. You do make the art point, of course. Doug McDonald |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sinar F, F1 or F2 | Daniel Rocha | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | December 20th 05 09:12 AM |
Sinar P or P2? | nobody | Large Format Photography Equipment | 6 | November 29th 05 12:15 AM |
Sinar db mount, can it be used with Sinar P? | nobody | Large Format Photography Equipment | 2 | November 22nd 05 05:42 PM |
FA Sinar binocular reflex housing kit for Sinar 4x5" | Bart | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 29th 04 04:32 PM |
FS Sinar binocular reflex housing kit for Sinar 4x5" | Bart | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 6th 04 08:52 PM |