iPad use with Catalina

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

People are doing a lot more with digital editing (or "doctoring" as I call
it) than mere dodge and burn.

not really. most people do little to nothing because what comes out of
the camera is already amazingly good.

...and yet everyday millions of digital cameras, and smartphone users produce
crappy images with every press of the shutter which no post processing will
ever fix. No Œdoctoring¹ of any type will ever fix them regardless of the
perpetrator of the digital visual assault now calling it art.

they did that with film too.

what's really ****ed up is there are instagram filters to make it look
like it came out of an instamatic.

On Oct 25, 2019, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Oct 25, 2019, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Incubus
wrote:


There is a solution: learn to frame and expose photos correctly in the
first instance.

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable.

People are doing a lot more with digital editing (or "doctoring" as I call
it) than mere dodge and burn.

not really. most people do little to nothing because what comes out of
the camera is already amazingly good.

...and yet everyday millions of digital cameras, and smartphone users produce
crappy images with every press of the shutter which no post processing will
ever fix. No ‘doctoring’ of any type will ever fix them regardless of the
perpetrator of the digital visual assault now calling it art.

BTW: That also goes for film. Very few of those nostalgic images discovered
in Dad’s shoe box were anything more than crappy snapshots, and few to none
ever came close to what could be produced with a digital workflow. Not every
film camera produced an Ansel Adams, an Edward Weston, Henri Cartier-Besson,
a Dorothea Lange, or an Alfred Stieglitz.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

nospam wrote:


there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable

Even I can recognise this as total ********, and I learned how to take
pix on an old Zenit E.


--
BMW K1600GTL; Kawasaki Ninja H2, Yamaha 660 Ténéré;
Guzzi Le Mans Mk.2; CD200x2, CB400F, Suzuki Address
More secure garages needed....
neil underscore murray at fastmail dot fm

In article o.uk, The
Older Gentleman wrote:



there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable

Even I can recognise this as total ********, and I learned how to take
pix on an old Zenit E.

it's exactly correct.

On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 25/10/2019 17:45, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-10-25, wrote:
On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):


You can always tell those who rely on their Photoshop crutch just a bit
too much - they get angry when you talk about not needing it.

Photoshop, and the various other digital editor, image processing software
are just tools each of which require a learning investment on the part of
the user. In much the same way the wet darkroom that we used in the past
(...and some continue to use today) required a learning investment. Neither the
wet, nor the digital darkroom is any guarantee that the user will be capable of
producing a photographic image that is pleasing to the viewer.

Neither of them, wet, or digital darkroom are crutches which will fix the
work of a poor photographer.

What all of them can do, regardless of whether it is a wet darkroom,
Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO PhotoLab, Affinity Photo, or even
Picasa, is allow the photographer who has learned how to properly use any
of those tools, to produce images which standout from the crowd of snapshots
in a way the Kodak Kiosk, Walmart, or Costco never could.

The problem is that digitally edited files tend to have a certain look to
them, particularly given the penchant people have for processing to the
point that images look unnatural. It has reached the point where a properly exposed
photo taken straight out of camera stands out more than one that has been edited
to "perfection". This isn't just user error; it is endemic.

As I have said, there is a learning curve for both learning fundamentals of
capturing a well composed image with any camera, film, or digital, as well
as
processing either film, or digital file. Remember that even film, properly
exposed, has to endure some sort of processing. Ultimately it is whichever
of your images you might care to share whether shot with an Argus C3, a Nikon,
or a Fujifilm, or even a smartphone.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-PBnNG2T/0/2ab4c25b/O/i-PBnNG2T.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BMHK5Pb/0/30ffb209/O/i-BMHK5Pb.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ccP5nDb/0/decf0f5b/O/i-ccP5nDb.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-wzj8hGp/0/64dfb187/O/i-wzj8hGp.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg

You'll need to load the full resolution.

Nikon D600:

https://ibb.co/SwTHvkp

Nikon D700:

https://ibb.co/85wg67X
https://ibb.co/WnjYx2s

Nikon D750:
https://ibb.co/QFL7CcN

Nice images, and most importantly they are more than snapshots.

As far as a need to load full resolution goes, that is always an option, but
not always necessary, depending on the needs of the recipient or the purpose
of the image sharing.

These are shot with a mere APS-C rather than your FF cameras. I have
personally not seen the need to move to FF. If I did I would probably go to
MF.

....but if you insist on full resolution here is a 6000x4000, and a 16:9
cropped 6000x3375.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-X45pWvH/0/d18c919c/O/i-X45pWvH.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/23/2019 6:29 PM, newshound wrote:

snip

And it is disappointing to find that a significant chunk of my
applications no longer work, including Audacity and Picasa.

If you still have the installation files for Picasa you could reinstall
it on a VM running Windows or an older version of OS-X.

Picasa was one of those rare apps that was both free and very capable
without being overly complex. It's a shame that Google dropped it in
favor of Google Photos. GIMP is fine but it's complicated.

It sounds like Audacity will be fixed to work on Catalina. It's another
awesome app that I use a lot.

In article , sms
wrote:

Picasa was one of those rare apps that was both free and very capable
without being overly complex. It's a shame that Google dropped it in
favor of Google Photos.

it was at the time, but now there are far better options.

GIMP is fine but it's complicated.

for what it does, that's true, but only because it's poorly designed.

photoshop elements does *much* more.

On Oct 25, 2019, The Older Gentleman wrote
(in article1og0tro.ly1yzh1jrntobN%totallydeadmailbox@ yahoo.co.uk):

nospam wrote:

there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable

Even I can recognise this as total ********, and I learned how to take
pix on an old Zenit E.

That Zenit E was what you learned on, in the same way I learned on a Brownie
and an Argus C3, but I do not use them today. What do you use for your
photography today?

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 25/10/2019 21:25, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 25/10/2019 17:45, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-10-25, wrote:
On Oct 25, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):


You can always tell those who rely on their Photoshop crutch just a bit
too much - they get angry when you talk about not needing it.

Photoshop, and the various other digital editor, image processing
software are just tools each of which require a learning investment on the part
of the user. In much the same way the wet darkroom that we used in the past
(...and some continue to use today) required a learning investment.
Neither the wet, nor the digital darkroom is any guarantee that the user will be
capable of producing a photographic image that is pleasing to the viewer.

Neither of them, wet, or digital darkroom are crutches which will fix
the work of a poor photographer.

What all of them can do, regardless of whether it is a wet darkroom,
Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO PhotoLab, Affinity Photo, or even
Picasa, is allow the photographer who has learned how to properly use
any of those tools, to produce images which standout from the crowd of
snapshots in a way the Kodak Kiosk, Walmart, or Costco never could.

The problem is that digitally edited files tend to have a certain look to
them, particularly given the penchant people have for processing to the
point that images look unnatural. It has reached the point where a
properly exposed photo taken straight out of camera stands out more than one that has
been edited to "perfection". This isn't just user error; it is endemic.

As I have said, there is a learning curve for both learning fundamentals
of capturing a well composed image with any camera, film, or digital, as well
as processing either film, or digital file. Remember that even film, properly
exposed, has to endure some sort of processing. Ultimately it is whichever
of your images you might care to share whether shot with an Argus C3, a
Nikon, or a Fujifilm, or even a smartphone.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-PBnNG2T/0/2ab4c25b/O/i-PBnNG2T.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BMHK5Pb/0/30ffb209/O/i-BMHK5Pb.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ccP5nDb/0/decf0f5b/O/i-ccP5nDb.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-wzj8hGp/0/64dfb187/O/i-wzj8hGp.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg

You'll need to load the full resolution.

Nikon D600:

https://ibb.co/SwTHvkp

Nikon D700:

https://ibb.co/85wg67X
https://ibb.co/WnjYx2s

Nikon D750:
https://ibb.co/QFL7CcN

Nice images, and most importantly they are more than snapshots.

Thanks.

As far as a need to load full resolution goes, that is always an option, but
not always necessary, depending on the needs of the recipient or the purpose
of the image sharing.

The reason I mentioned it is that the file-sharing site I used has quite
blurry images unless you load the full resolution file.

That is a reason I like SmugMug or Adobe CC for image file sharing. I get to
choose image size for sharing without some arbitrary compression algorithm
being applied.


These are shot with a mere APS-C rather than your FF cameras. I have
personally not seen the need to move to FF. If I did I would probably go to
MF.

The main reason I went full frame is because I have a lot of lenses from
the film era. Going from a Nikon D300, the logical upgrade would be a
D500, which is an excellent camera, but the D750 gives me far more for
less money for my purposes.

My digital DSLR photography started with a Nikon D70, then I moved to a D300
which was stolen, and replaced with a D300S. I moved to Fujifilm when it
seemed that Nikon would never release an update to the D300S due to the
fixation on FF. Six months after I bought my first Fujifilm, Nikon released
the D500. By that time I was enamored by the Fuji X-system.


...but if you insist on full resolution here is a 6000x4000, and a 16:9
cropped 6000x3375.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tKJg2NJ/0/dc385f23/O/i-tKJg2NJ.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-X45pWvH/0/d18c919c/O/i-X45pWvH.jpg

Which camera is that? It's a mirrorless Fuji from what I remember. The
image quality is impressive and you have the skills to match.

Those were shot with the Fujifilm X-T2 which is now a spare body as I
upgraded to the X-T3. If I ever go larger than APS-C it would more than
likely be to one of the Fuji MF GFX cameras.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 25/10/2019 21:17, The Older Gentleman wrote:
nospam wrote:


there was a lot of darkroom manipulation with film, more so than the
digital equivalent today because the cameras were nowhere near as
capable

Even I can recognise this as total ********, and I learned how to take
pix on an old Zenit E.

Funny enough that was the first SLR I ever handled - it wasn't mine, but
a friend was into photography at school, and I used to help him out with
it a lot, including developing in the darkroom.

I got an Olympus OM-10 as my first SLR.

Having said that, some of my favourite photos over time (simply because
of the memories they have) were with cheap old 110 cartridge film cameras.

--
Andy Hewitt