Will Lightroom Become Web Only?

On Oct 27, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:


I have little doubt that Adams would have been drawn to enormous level of
control available in today¹s Photoshop digital darkroom. Unfortunately, for
him, he ran out of time in 1984 three years before PS saw the light of day
in its crudest form.

its crudest form could be considered macpaint, in 1984.

I believe Adams was otherwise occupied with stuff related to dying in 1984.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/27/2017 9:39 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:09:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/27/2017 4:50 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:53:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

We disagree. I am stating my understanding of the belief of those who
state that photographs should not alter reality. But, even that is OT on
my original comment in opposition to the troll maliciously calling those
who believe photography should follow the f64 school, as opposed to
pictorialists, idiots.

I feel like you're stretching this argument way beyond its natural
limits. When purists talk about getting it right in the camera, it's
commonly understood to mean just that. The composition, framing,
lighting, color, all aspects of the photo are carefully set before
pressing that shutter button, with nothing at all being done in post
other than exposure time tweaking. I believe that those people are the
nutcase purists that are being called ignorant, and I agree with that.
But that's not at all what f64 were referring to.

In fact, this sort of refers back to what Duck was talking about some
time ago - the fact that the jpg's coming out of his new Fuji were
good enough to leave as is. And that is what could rightly be called
getting it right in the camera, even if the camera itself is making
choices, and doing an awful lot of the "getting it right".


To make things clear I quoted the f64 manifesto, and stated several
times what was meant. At no time did anyone say the individuals I
mentioned were not the "idiots" he was referring to.

Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?


Not the original ones. I did post a link to his website. With full
knowledge of his philosophy, I took a one week workshop with him, the
subject was landscape photography, and printing. There were four
students and two instructors, it ran from about 5:30 AM to after 9:00
PM. You can safely conclude it was intensive. I also attended two of his
seminars. Although I do not agree with his philosophy, I respect him,
admire his work, and have learned a lot from from him. He generally uses
a Hassy, with a digital back. And I purchased his book.

http://www.sjphoto.com/index.shtml

--
PeterN

On 10/27/2017 10:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?

Some of them might have reached the fringe of digital and PS development, but
it is doubtful that any of them dabbled.

The Original seven:
Adams 1902-1984

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/...ras/dslrs-to-s
hoot-like-ansel-adams/
Digital imaging didn¹t exist when Adams was active, but he saw it
coming. When OP Senior Editor Mike Stensvold interviewed Adams for a
magazine in 1980, his wonderful book Yosemite and the Range of Light
had just come out, and he was delighted to discover that he could get
more out of his negatives with the laser scanner used to create the
images for the book than he could printing them in the darkroom. He
was excited about the possibilities the future held and even left his
negatives to a large university, in part, so the people there could
print them with future technologies.

Electronic (now digital) imaging has come a long way since then, and
we strongly suspect Adams would be using it today. He¹d be scanning
his classic negatives and making more expressive prints than ever.
And he¹d be shooting digital. Why? Because he believed in control,
and digital provides it, far beyond what was possible with film and
the darkroom. And more than anything, Adams knew photography is
about the photograph, not how you got there. Any tools that would
help him create those terrific prints, he¹d love.


Yes! But he would never add objects that were not in the original capture,

--
PeterN

On 10/28/2017 10:51 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/27/2017 9:39 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:09:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/27/2017 4:50 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:53:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

We disagree. I am stating my understanding of the belief of those who
state that photographs should not alter reality. But, even that is
OT on
my original comment in opposition to the troll maliciously calling
those
who believe photography should follow the f64 school, as opposed to
pictorialists, idiots.

I feel like you're stretching this argument way beyond its natural
limits. When purists talk about getting it right in the camera, it's
commonly understood to mean just that. The composition, framing,
lighting, color, all aspects of the photo are carefully set before
pressing that shutter button, with nothing at all being done in post
other than exposure time tweaking. I believe that those people are the
nutcase purists that are being called ignorant, and I agree with that.
But that's not at all what f64 were referring to.

In fact, this sort of refers back to what Duck was talking about some
time ago - the fact that the jpg's coming out of his new Fuji were
good enough to leave as is. And that is what could rightly be called
getting it right in the camera, even if the camera itself is making
choices, and doing an awful lot of the "getting it right".


To make things clear I quoted the f64 manifesto, and stated several
times what was meant. At no time did anyone say the individuals I
mentioned were not the "idiots" he was referring to.

Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?


Not the original ones. I did post a link to his website. With full
knowledge of his philosophy, I took a one week workshop with him, the
subject was landscape photography, and printing. There were four
students and two instructors, it ran from about 5:30 AM to after 9:00
PM. You can safely conclude it was intensive. I also attended two of his
seminars. Although I do not agree with his philosophy, I respect him,
admire his work, and have learned a lot from from him. He generally uses
a Hassy, with a digital back. AndÂ* I purchased his book.

http://www.sjphoto.com/index.shtml


I should have added that he does beautiful large format digital photography.
http://www.betterlight.com/userGallery/gallery_StephenJohnson.html

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?

Some of them might have reached the fringe of digital and PS development,
but
it is doubtful that any of them dabbled.

The Original seven:
Adams 1902-1984

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/...ras/dslrs-to-s
hoot-like-ansel-adams/
Digital imaging didn1t exist when Adams was active, but he saw it
coming. When OP Senior Editor Mike Stensvold interviewed Adams for a
magazine in 1980, his wonderful book Yosemite and the Range of Light
had just come out, and he was delighted to discover that he could get
more out of his negatives with the laser scanner used to create the
images for the book than he could printing them in the darkroom. He
was excited about the possibilities the future held and even left his
negatives to a large university, in part, so the people there could
print them with future technologies.

Electronic (now digital) imaging has come a long way since then, and
we strongly suspect Adams would be using it today. He1d be scanning
his classic negatives and making more expressive prints than ever.
And he1d be shooting digital. Why? Because he believed in control,
and digital provides it, far beyond what was possible with film and
the darkroom. And more than anything, Adams knew photography is
about the photograph, not how you got there. Any tools that would
help him create those terrific prints, he1d love.

Yes! But he would never add objects that were not in the original capture,

did he tell you that?

On Oct 28, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/27/2017 10:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:


Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?

Some of them might have reached the fringe of digital and PS development,
but
it is doubtful that any of them dabbled.

The Original seven:
Adams 1902-1984

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/...ras/dslrs-to-s
hoot-like-ansel-adams/
Digital imaging didn¹t exist when Adams was active, but he saw it
coming. When OP Senior Editor Mike Stensvold interviewed Adams for a
magazine in 1980, his wonderful book Yosemite and the Range of Light
had just come out, and he was delighted to discover that he could get
more out of his negatives with the laser scanner used to create the
images for the book than he could printing them in the darkroom. He
was excited about the possibilities the future held and even left his
negatives to a large university, in part, so the people there could
print them with future technologies.

Electronic (now digital) imaging has come a long way since then, and
we strongly suspect Adams would be using it today. He¹d be scanning
his classic negatives and making more expressive prints than ever.
And he¹d be shooting digital. Why? Because he believed in control,
and digital provides it, far beyond what was possible with film and
the darkroom. And more than anything, Adams knew photography is
about the photograph, not how you got there. Any tools that would
help him create those terrific prints, he¹d love.

Yes! But he would never add objects that were not in the original capture,

....but for the right kind of money he might have been tempted.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2x2ukgkbu9wmyre/_DSF4550-Edit.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/28/2017 11:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?

Some of them might have reached the fringe of digital and PS development,
but
it is doubtful that any of them dabbled.

The Original seven:
Adams 1902-1984

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/...ras/dslrs-to-s
hoot-like-ansel-adams/
Digital imaging didn1t exist when Adams was active, but he saw it
coming. When OP Senior Editor Mike Stensvold interviewed Adams for a
magazine in 1980, his wonderful book Yosemite and the Range of Light
had just come out, and he was delighted to discover that he could get
more out of his negatives with the laser scanner used to create the
images for the book than he could printing them in the darkroom. He
was excited about the possibilities the future held and even left his
negatives to a large university, in part, so the people there could
print them with future technologies.

Electronic (now digital) imaging has come a long way since then, and
we strongly suspect Adams would be using it today. He1d be scanning
his classic negatives and making more expressive prints than ever.
And he1d be shooting digital. Why? Because he believed in control,
and digital provides it, far beyond what was possible with film and
the darkroom. And more than anything, Adams knew photography is
about the photograph, not how you got there. Any tools that would
help him create those terrific prints, he1d love.

Yes! But he would never add objects that were not in the original capture,

did he tell you that?


One of his lab techs did.


--
PeterN

On 10/29/2017 12:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 28, 2017, PeterN wrote


snip



Yes! But he would never add objects that were not in the original capture,

...but for the right kind of money he might have been tempted.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2x2ukgkbu9wmyre/_DSF4550-Edit.jpg


G
We will never know.
I have met some artists for whom money doesn't mean a thing. Admittedly
they are far in the minority.


--
PeterN

On 10/29/2017 5:21 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/28/2017 11:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Were any of the f64 folks still alive for digital, and PS?

Some of them might have reached the fringe of digital and PS
development,
but
it is doubtful that any of them dabbled.

The Original seven:
Adams 1902-1984

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/...ras/dslrs-to-s

hoot-like-ansel-adams/
Â*Â*Â* Digital imaging didn1t exist when Adams was active, but he saw it
Â*Â*Â* coming. When OP Senior Editor Mike Stensvold interviewed Adams
for a
Â*Â*Â* magazine in 1980, his wonderful book Yosemite and the Range of
Light
Â*Â*Â* had just come out, and he was delighted to discover that he
could get
Â*Â*Â* more out of his negatives with the laser scanner used to create the
Â*Â*Â* images for the book than he could printing them in the darkroom. He
Â*Â*Â* was excited about the possibilities the future held and even
left his
Â*Â*Â* negatives to a large university, in part, so the people there could
Â*Â*Â* print them with future technologies.

Â*Â*Â* Electronic (now digital) imaging has come a long way since then,
and
Â*Â*Â* we strongly suspect Adams would be using it today. He1d be scanning
Â*Â*Â* his classic negatives and making more expressive prints than ever.
Â*Â*Â* And he1d be shooting digital. Why? Because he believed in control,
Â*Â*Â* and digital provides it, far beyond what was possible with film and
Â*Â*Â* the darkroom. And more than anything, Adams knew photography is
Â*Â*Â* about the photograph, not how you got there. Any tools that would
Â*Â*Â* help him create those terrific prints, he1d love.

Yes! But he would never add objects that were not in the original
capture,

did he tell you that?


One of his lab techs did.


I should have said: "former lab techs did."

--
PeterN