Medium Format
John Halliwell
> I have to disagree. I can get 120 E6 processing done for less than
>35mm. Also, a brand new Bronica GS-1 is only slightly more than a F5.
>Considering how many are seriously thinking of buying an F5 on here, I think
>getting a 6x7 camera for the price of a 35mm one inexpensive. No autofocus
>or other auto toys? Of course not, but what do you want them for on MF?
>Only the AF adorned 645 toys are expensive, and they're also crap. The AF
>on 645 cameras is truly awful, and the metering technology is about the same
>as a 10 year old SLR. A waste of money. My best advice is to get a used
>Bronica SQ, either A, B, AM, or Ai derivative, and a good used incident
>light meter, and that;s it, you're away!
Not used the AF MFs so can't comment. The metering of some is pretty
much on a par (spec wise). Most now support matrix/spot/centre weighted
with the right finder.
The Bronica is a good camera but it's not ideal for all situations. My
preference is for a focal plane shutter and instant return mirror.
Blanket comments like this don't help people to choose which format is
best for their needs.
Cross posted to "rec.photo.equipment.medium-format" for a more balanced
response.
--
John
Pentax MX, LX, Super-A (Super Program), SFXn (SF1n) & Z-1 (PZ-1).
Pentax auto 110.
Miranda MS-2 Super.
Mamiya C330f & 645SV.
Lubitel 166.
chmc
John Halliwell wrote:
> In article <7v0t5i$p3s$3...@gxsn.com>, Only me... <davebg@[nospam]> writes
> > I have to disagree. I can get 120 E6 processing done for less than
> >35mm.
You are probably more knowledgable about this than I am since I process my own
film, but on a per frame basis I think that 120 is usually more expensive, even
if it is cheaper per roll.
> Also, a brand new Bronica GS-1 is only slightly more than a F5.
> >Considering how many are seriously thinking of buying an F5 on here, I think
> >getting a 6x7 camera for the price of a 35mm one inexpensive.
I have seen this arguement before and I don't buy it. Saying that a 6x7 camera
is only slightly more expensive than one of the most expensive 35mm cameras
available seems more like evidence that medium format is more expensive than
35mm than the reverse. Also, you have to check out the difference in lens prices
as well, and Bronica lenses with their leaf shutters tend to be pretty pricey.
For example, the cheapest Bronica lens listed at B&H was the 100mm at $1149.
There are a number of fast zooms and specialty lenses for a Nikon that are more
expensive, but most are significantly cheaper, and this is the cheapest lens for
the GS-1.
Clearly though, there is some overlap between the prices of medium format cameras
and 35mm. I have a Kiev 60 which cost me $280 with a lens, and have since bought
a couple more lenses for it at less than $170 a piece, which wouldn't be bad
prices for 35mm. But this is clearly a bargain basement option.
> No autofocus
> >or other auto toys? Of course not, but what do you want them for on MF?
> >Only the AF adorned 645 toys are expensive, and they're also crap. The AF
> >on 645 cameras is truly awful, and the metering technology is about the same
> >as a 10 year old SLR. A waste of money. My best advice is to get a used
> >Bronica SQ, either A, B, AM, or Ai derivative, and a good used incident
> >light meter, and that;s it, you're away!
>
> Not used the AF MFs so can't comment. The metering of some is pretty
> much on a par (spec wise). Most now support matrix/spot/centre weighted
> with the right finder.
>
I have heard comments from 5 or 6 people who have the Pentax 645n, and they all
love it. I don't think that the autofocus is as fast as the fastest 35mm
autofocus cameras, but from what I hear it's not bad.
>
> The Bronica is a good camera but it's not ideal for all situations. My
> preference is for a focal plane shutter and instant return mirror.
>
> Blanket comments like this don't help people to choose which format is
> best for their needs.
>
I agree.
LoveThePenguin
1. A (1) Fuji GS645 or (2) Bronica SQ-B (6x6) is easily hand-held.
2. The price for starting in either used can be
(1) $500 to $600 or (2) $1000 to $1300
3. They are practical hand-held, esp. when using 400 film.
And 100 speed film is not impractical.
It does cost a little more than 35mm, but so what. It's not
like many amateurs think seriously about replacing 35mm
with MF (though a few probably do). Each has its place.
4. Metering is not difficult. Half the time I don't use a meter.
Just set the speed & lens & shoot. Or turn on the flash & shoot.
Remember:
a) Use amateur film when possible with its wide light latitude.
It's a little cheaper than pro film and a bit more contrasty.
b) ASA 100, 1/250 @ f8 in sunlight.
Ppen or close a stop or two as needed.
Print film latitude is fairly forgiving.
5. If one is using 35mm for fun, MF can be modestly-priced fun as well.
Plus, the pics are a LOT nicer.
6. Some of these posters get pretty "religious" about their positions.
You can have a lot of fun with MF for a modest investment.
7. Whatever you do, have FUN.
In article <3814B5DA...@chmc.oeg>,
--
Alcohol and math don't mix. Don't drink & derive.
A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Only me...
chmc <ch...@chmc.oeg> wrote in message news:3814B5DA...@chmc.oeg...
> You are probably more knowledgable about this than I am since I process my
own
> film, but on a per frame basis I think that 120 is usually more expensive,
even
> if it is cheaper per roll.
Per frame, maybe, but by film area processed, it's cheaper. Depends how
you look at it. I just accept that there's 12 exposures per 120 roll, and I
price things per roll, regardless of frames. Just keeps things less
complicated. Either way, the difference is not that staggering that anyone
should be put off buying into MF ;-)
> I have seen this arguement before and I don't buy it. Saying that a 6x7
camera
> is only slightly more expensive than one of the most expensive 35mm
cameras
> available seems more like evidence that medium format is more expensive
than
> 35mm than the reverse. Also, you have to check out the difference in lens
prices
> as well, and Bronica lenses with their leaf shutters tend to be pretty
pricey.
No, about the same. It all equals out. I happily paid £600 for a
Nikkor zoom lens, but because I don't use zooms with MF, I was just as happy
to pay that for a prime.... When I look at how much the Bronica outfit has
cost me compared to eth Nikon outfit, I see that the Bronica seems to be
working out at better value for money. So you don't get AF, AE, blah,
blah.... But you don't need it, and it's not an issue. That's like saying
a motorbike is actually NOT cheaper than a car, because it has 2 wheels
missing. It's irrelevant! The system I bought to fulfil my medium format
needs, was less expensive than the one that fulfils my 35mm needs. This may
change from person to person, and isn't proof of anything of course, but one
fact remains: Medium format is not as expensive as people think it is. he
biggest reason 35mm users think it is, is primarily because they're
considering focal planed, AF 645 cameras above everything else, and I think
such cameras are horrendously expensive compared to manual 120 gear.
> For example, the cheapest Bronica lens listed at B&H was the 100mm at
$1149.
> There are a number of fast zooms and specialty lenses for a Nikon that are
more
> expensive, but most are significantly cheaper, and this is the cheapest
lens for
> the GS-1.
I've paid much more than that for 35mm lenses. I once paid £11,500 for
a lens :-)
>
> Clearly though, there is some overlap between the prices of medium format
cameras
> and 35mm. I have a Kiev 60 which cost me $280 with a lens, and have since
bought
> a couple more lenses for it at less than $170 a piece, which wouldn't be
bad
> prices for 35mm. But this is clearly a bargain basement option.
Of course it is. My original post did also mention used gear, and I
particularly mentioned the ETR cameras. These can be bought very cheaply,
as can it;s lenses.
> > Not used the AF MFs so can't comment.
it's sluggish, and about eth same as 35mm AF was about 10 years ago.
The Contax was particularly bad. The Pentax was better, but considering the
cost, it's a joke. Just use 35mm instead if you need AF.
> The metering of some is pretty
> > much on a par (spec wise). Most now support matrix/spot/centre weighted
> > with the right finder.
Spot, matrix? Why's that relevant. Matrix metering has been around
for ages. It's better now than it was 10 years ago though. Having matrix
metering doesn't mean it's GOOD matrix metering :-)
> >
>
> I have heard comments from 5 or 6 people who have the Pentax 645n, and
they all
> love it. I don't think that the autofocus is as fast as the fastest 35mm
> autofocus cameras, but from what I hear it's not bad.
Not bad... that can be taken in a variety of ways. Considering how
much more the Contax AF 645 camera is than a manual 120 camera, I expect it
to be very good. Why pay all that for "not bad"?
> > Blanket comments like this don't help people to choose which format is
> > best for their needs.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
Blanket statements? Such as? Giving advice that says medium format is
not expensive if you buy used manual 120 equipment. How can that be a
blanket statement? If people want to pay a fortune on AF 120 gear, they
will anyway, but those who are under the impression that ALL medium format
gear will cost them an arm and a leg need to advised about the options the
glossy photo magazines forget to mention.
You don't need AF on medium format. 645 is not the format of choice
for most anyway, and automatically considering AF adorned 645 cameras that
cost a fortune is why a lot of 35mm users think 120 is expensive. A friend
of mine traded in her crappy old OM10, 2 Zuiko lenses, and only had to pay
£100 to get a mint condition ETR-S with 75mm and back. Sounds like a
bargain to me.
If you're prepared to loose AF, you van get into 120 at a very low
cost - and not at the low end either, these are professional cameras.
> >
> > Cross posted to "rec.photo.equipment.medium-format" for a more balanced
> > response.
And balanced it will be, I assure you.
David.
Michael Tremblay
not point fighting your tools! I use hassy, a single lens, a spot meter
and a tripod and some bits and pieces, and a whole case load of extra
backs. I'll bet that 80-90% of most people's pictures are taken
with a single lens, probably the standard for most people, but
probably a favourite lens -- so figure out your favourite and buy it,
as the long term costs are largely irrelevant. If I were into
portraiture, I'd use something longer, if nature, either a macro or a
big lens. People with fifty lens don't take pictures, they collect
equipment.
As for film, god, talk about spoiling the ship for halpenny of tar!
Use the best film you can, cherish the photographic moment, or have
we all forgotten that photography is about 'the moment'. When
doing what I love doing, my current project is a collaboration, I
might use three rolls in an afternoon.
Don't waste the moment.
In article <7v3uv3$rbt$8...@gxsn.com>, Only me...
<davebg@[nospam]> writes
>
>chmc <ch...@chmc.oeg> wrote in message news:3814B5DA.DC2EA3C1@chmc.
Mike Tremblay
flyboy803
Agreed, the price isn't that huge in buying film and getting the usual
prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
changes enough to at least be a consideration...
For instance; a local pro lab is charging me $12 for a ten inch square
enlargement, and while this isn't a hardship for me, it could be for
others...with 35mm, and if you're lucky enough to have a good consumer
lab near by, you can get 8x10 enlargements for as little as $3.95...I
guess I am lucky, because my consumer lab does some very nice and
inexpensive work...
> Depends how
> you look at it. I just accept that there's 12 exposures per 120
> roll, and I
> price things per roll, regardless of frames. Just keeps things
> less
> complicated. Either way, the difference is not that staggering
> that anyone
> should be put off buying into MF ;-)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Sheldon D. Stokes
<flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Agreed, the price isn't that huge in buying film and getting the usual
> prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
> standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
> changes enough to at least be a consideration...
true, I pay a lot to have 120 developed and printed locally. But what
nice prints. They aren't pink like some of my 35mm prints from the drones
at the one hour places.
> > Depends how
> > you look at it. I just accept that there's 12 exposures per 120
> > roll, and I
> > price things per roll, regardless of frames. Just keeps things
> > less
> > complicated. Either way, the difference is not that staggering
> > that anyone
> > should be put off buying into MF ;-)
After seeing the results from my first roll on my rolleiflex, I was
hooked. No matter what the price. I'm now thinking view camera.
The first bag is free.
Sheldon
Only me...
flyboy803 <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17599f0b...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
>
> Agreed, the price isn't that huge in buying film and getting the usual
> prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
> standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
> changes enough to at least be a consideration...
>
> enlargement, and while this isn't a hardship for me, it could be for
> others...with 35mm,
I don't consider that expensive. Most people wouldn't be satisfied with
committing their best work to a machine print anyway, and seeing as there's
not really any difference in hand printing costs between 35mm and 120, I
don;t see a problem here. .
David.
Only me...
Sheldon D. Stokes <s.d.s...@att.net> wrote in message news:s.d.stokes-
> true, I pay a lot to have 120 developed and printed locally. But what
> nice prints. They aren't pink like some of my 35mm prints from the drones
> at the one hour places.
Exactly. If you care about your 35mm work, you'll be getting hand
prints done anyhow, and as these are the same price roughly as 120 prints of
a comparable size, what's the problem here?
David.
Earl Fieldman
Only me... wrote in message <7vahgh$lu4$6...@gxsn.com>...
>>
> Exactly. If you care about your 35mm work, you'll be getting hand
>prints done anyhow, and as these are the same price roughly as 120 prints
of
>a comparable size, what's the problem here?
Here's MY problem.
I'd love to use a medium format camera. I could afford one, and I've
been in situations where I'd rather use one.
BUT
All of my important pictures these days go through some form
of enhancement in Photoshop. They get into Photoshop by being
scanned on a film scanner. No film scanner available (to me) today
will generate any more information from a MF negative compared
to a 35mm negative. If you can't get the additional information,
your reason for being for MF has gone away.
Maybe next year.
Maybe the year after that.
Earl F.
Only me...
Earl Fieldman <efie...@anywehere.net> wrote in message
news:uHY9nOcI$GA.326@cpmsnbbsa02...
> BUT
> All of my important pictures these days go through some form
> of enhancement in Photoshop.
Why? Can you no longer take good photographs? Why do people just
automatically shove all their images through PhotoShop? Is the sky never
blue enough for you, or the grass green? Digital just for the sake of it is
poor practice. Unless you always do some sort of montage work, or need to
retouch every image you take, why not just print it straight. Why do you
feel a need to "enhance" them? Do you feel a need to "enhance" your eyes
when you look out over a wonderful landscape?
I feel sorry for you.
David.
C. J. Morgan
news:uHY9nOcI$GA.326@cpmsnbbsa02...
: > BUT
: > All of my important pictures these days go through some form
: > of enhancement in Photoshop.
Only me... (davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk) wrote:
: Why? Can you no longer take good photographs? Why do people just
: automatically shove all their images through PhotoShop? Is the sky never
: blue enough for you, or the grass green? Digital just for the sake of it is
: poor practice. Unless you always do some sort of montage work, or need to
: retouch every image you take, why not just print it straight. Why do you
: feel a need to "enhance" them? Do you feel a need to "enhance" your eyes
: when you look out over a wonderful landscape?
: I feel sorry for you.
: David.
No need to feels sorry for them. Enhancing one's images seems about as
natural to me as a writer who might want to refine a first draft. And if
the technology is there so that a photographer's work can be crafted to
create an image which has more clarity, directness and impact, I don't
see any problem with this idea of enhancing the image.
To your question asking Earl why he doesn't just print the image
straight, I would suggest the answer, at least in part, can be found in
his words. The pictures he puts through Photoshop are the ones he deems
as important. That implies he cares about them, and that he's willing to
invest the time to make them better than just a "first draft."
It's not about an inability to take good pictures. It's about starting
with good pictures and refining them to make them even better. And it's
not about shoving ALL his images through Photoshop. It's about picking
the ones he already deems important and making them even more special for
presentation.
We wouldn't think much of a writer who would just gives us first drafts.
And the same could be said of a photographer. Photoshop is one of those
tools which affords us the opportunity to do more than just "first
drafts."
And I, for one, think that kind of extra effort should be commended.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Joe De Medeiros
flyboy803 <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
> standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
> changes enough to at least be a consideration...
>
> For instance; a local pro lab is charging me $12 for a ten inch square
> enlargement, and while this isn't a hardship for me, it could be for
> lab near by, you can get 8x10 enlargements for as little as $3.95...I
> guess I am lucky, because my consumer lab does some very nice and
> inexpensive work...
>
if you ask for an 8 inch square it would be more inline with an 8X10, 10
inch he has to use larger paper stock so it costs more.
Joe
belade
find a place that is reasonable. I don't need custom labs. Just a regular lab
that does good work will do. Any ideas? I live in Upstate NY. Thanks very
much.
flyboy803 wrote:
> Agreed, the price isn't that huge in buying film and getting the usual
> prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
> standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
> changes enough to at least be a consideration...
>
> For instance; a local pro lab is charging me $12 for a ten inch square
> enlargement, and while this isn't a hardship for me, it could be for
> others...with 35mm, and if you're lucky enough to have a good consumer
> lab near by, you can get 8x10 enlargements for as little as $3.95...I
> guess I am lucky, because my consumer lab does some very nice and
> inexpensive work...
>
> > Depends how
> > you look at it. I just accept that there's 12 exposures per 120
> > roll, and I
> > price things per roll, regardless of frames. Just keeps things
> > less
> > complicated. Either way, the difference is not that staggering
> > that anyone
> > should be put off buying into MF ;-)
>
Godfrey DiGiorgi
I do not have the time or space to do wet lab printing at present. All my
printing is done using a negative scanner and image processing software.
Not because I like to manipulate my pictures any more than I used to do
with the enlarger, chemistry and paper selections, but because they are
tools which allow me to print.
I have the same difficulty that Earl has: I have two lovely Rolleiflex 6x6
cameras which take superb pictures, but the best scanner that I can afford
(for $2300) renders me 2550x2550 pixel images where for 35mm a $1600 Nikon
or Polaroid 2550x3816 pixel images, and a Polaroid 4000 approximately
4000x6000 pixel images. Professional scans at 2500dpi on MF film are very
expensive, and the cost of having someone else make me quality prints is
prohibitive also. So I end up using my MF equipment only infrequently,
35mm is more effective at producing top notch pictures right now.
Certainly, top quality 35mm printing does better than I can do with a
medium resolution film scanner and $500 printer, but at the cost of $20-30
a print at a top lab, I wouldn't be able to do very much photography that
way. When I do want a presentation quality print larger than my printer
can produce, I make a match print electronically first and then hand that
with the negative to a custom lab as a guide to what I want out of the
negative.
Godfrey
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Only me... wrote:
> Earl Fieldman <efie...@anywehere.net> wrote in message
> > BUT
> > All of my important pictures these days go through some form
> > of enhancement in Photoshop.
>
gi...@lava.net
>Earl Fieldman <efie...@anywehere.net> wrote in message
>news:uHY9nOcI$GA.326@cpmsnbbsa02...
>> BUT
>> All of my important pictures these days go through some form
>> of enhancement in Photoshop.
> Why? Can you no longer take good photographs?
Gee, Dave. Looks like you still think you're TopGun.
Many photos that are going to "print" in magazines, papers, etc. are
digitally scanned and sent through photoshop to fine tune colors and
contrast for the printing process that's going to be used.
Maybe all of YOUR photographs are the best in the world and can't be
improved, but that does not make them necessarily ready for the print
media world...
You might have a good grip on your camera, but the one on your life is
slipping too easily...
> I feel sorry for you.
You ARE about the sorriest person I've ever encountered....
>David.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
gi...@lava.net
What evil lurks in the hearts of men???
The SHADOW knows...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Earl Fieldman
C. J. Morgan wrote in message ...
> Enhancing one's images seems about as
>natural to me as a writer who might want to refine a first draft. And if
>the technology is there so that a photographer's work can be crafted to
>create an image which has more clarity, directness and impact, I don't
>see any problem with this idea of enhancing the image.
Wow, thanks. I couldn't have said it any more eloquently myself.
Earl F.
Earl Fieldman
C. J. Morgan wrote in message ...
>: > BUT
>: > All of my important pictures these days go through some form
>: > of enhancement in Photoshop.
>
>
>Only me... (davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk) wrote:
>: Why? Can you no longer take good photographs? Why do people just
>: automatically shove all their images through PhotoShop
Well, here's how it is.
If I just print them straight out, I get colors all right, but not always
colors anyone would like, so I fix 'em. Your lab does that for you,
too. If they just printed what's on your color negatives, you
wouldn't like it. In fact, if you ever gave your mother a
print of her looking yellow, you'd subsequently take this
problem very seriously, I know I have.
I can print 1:1.5, but only by "wasting paper", so I crop to
something closer to 1:1.25 (8x10).
All of them get that treatment. Then comes the fun part.
Sometimes I actually do make the sky a bit bluer, the grass
greener, but that's not a primary goal. Most of my
photos have people in them. Adults. Out go skin blemishes,
soft go wrinkles, bright go diamonds, whiter go teeth,
..well, you get the picture. If the people I photographed
CAME perfect now..
Earl F.
FOR7
>>> of enhancement in Photoshop.
>
>
>
>
>Many photos that are going to "print" in magazines, papers, etc. are
>digitally scanned and sent through photoshop to fine tune colors and
>contrast for the printing process that's going to be used.
>
>Maybe all of YOUR photographs are the best in the world and can't be
>improved, but that does not make them necessarily ready for the print
>media world...
>
>You might have a good grip on your camera, but the one on your life is
>slipping too easily...
>
>
>> I feel sorry for you.
>
>You ARE about the sorriest person I've ever encountered....
>
>>David.
>
>
>
To many people assume that just because you do digital work and that you print
out digital pictures that you must have done something so radical to have made
them look good. Surely you could not make that same picture without a computer.
Not every person that does digital work is concerned about moving one persons
head to anothers body or goofy things like that. As for me I am mainly
concerned about getting color as accurate as possible and making sure the
brightness/darkness is right. Nothing different from someone trying to get a
good print the traditional way. I had one guy at work ask me sarcastically if I
made "made that picture on a computer" and my answer was "you are an idiot".
I wasn't in a good mood that day. :)
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Only me...
<gi...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:381a670b$1$tvab$mr2...@news.lava.net...
> In <7vbitk$ka5$2...@gxsn.com>, on 10/29/99
> Gee, Dave. Looks like you still think you're TopGun.
You're still insecure I see.
>
> Many photos that are going to "print" in magazines, papers, etc. are
> digitally scanned and sent through photoshop to fine tune colors and
> contrast for the printing process that's going to be used.
Yes Gino, now look at my other posts of mine on here, and you'll see
that I'm not talking about matching colours to get a decent print. Besides,
trying to cram the limitless amount of colours into a print that uses four
colours (as almost all offset-litho magazine printing does) is unavoidable.
I'm talking about "enhancing" prints, not matching them to your output,
which incidentally is usually an automated process anyway, I'm talking about
people thinking that they need to increase colour, even though they shot on
Velvia; increase contrast even though the tranny looked great; blur out a
background a little more when they should have thought about that before
pressing the shutter. It's just crap, all of it.
>
> Maybe all of YOUR photographs are the best in the world and can't be
> improved, but that does not make them necessarily ready for the print
> media world...
Yes they are. The only things that are changed, are things that need to
be changes to make the final print look the SAME as the transparency. I
have no problem with that, and if that's all you do, why are you arguing
with me? You must be one of those people that saturate colours to
ludicrous levels, retouch everything, and make the world look a nicer place
to be.... Anyone can do that Gino. Using Photoshop is easy. Any half-wit
can take a crap shot and manipulate it into a half decent one. These people
are under the impression they're photographers though. They're not, they're
PhotoShop operators. They sit in offices all day, doing just what you
advocate as good photography all day long. Anyone can do it.
>
> You might have a good grip on your camera, but the one on your life is
> slipping too easily...
Yeah, yeah..... It can carry on slipping then so far as I'm
concerned. I'm earning more now than I ever did. I could live very
comfortably off the income my stock photography alone generates, not to
mention the commissions, as if I care what you think.
> You ARE about the sorriest person I've ever encountered....
You've never encountered me Gino, and I never apologise for anything.
David.
Only me...
> >Only me... (davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk) wrote:
> >: Why? Can you no longer take good photographs? Why do people just
> >: automatically shove all their images through PhotoShop
>
> Well, here's how it is.
>
> If I just print them straight out, I get colors all right, but not always
> colors anyone would like, so I fix 'em. Your lab does that for you,
> too.
I've mentioned elsewhere that if it's just a case of matching the image
to your printer's output, I have no problem with you.
> If they just printed what's on your color negatives, you
> wouldn't like it. In fact, if you ever gave your mother a
> print of her looking yellow, you'd subsequently take this
> problem very seriously, I know I have.
Whilst you make a valid point, the problem does not lie with the
negative, but rather with the printing machine. I can go into my darkroom
now, and produce a nice colour print from my negatives without having to
adjust anything. My enlarger is set up for each film type I use, and if you
take your film to a decent lab, they'll just use a setting fro that film
too. The negative is fine. When you scan a print/neg/tranny, the only
manipulation you need to do, is to match your printer, but wouldn't it make
more sense if you did that.. match your printer to the scans, so that you
could just print them straight out with natural colours. Why change every
image to match your printer? Why not change your printer settings to match
your images? That way, you'll not have to change anything, would you?
>
> I can print 1:1.5, but only by "wasting paper", so I crop to
> something closer to 1:1.25 (8x10).
Cropping isn't digital "enhancement". I can do that with a pair of
scissors ;-)
>
> All of them get that treatment. Then comes the fun part.
> Sometimes I actually do make the sky a bit bluer, the grass
> greener, but that's not a primary goal.
This is the part that pisses me off. Why? It just looks SHIT!! If you
got prints like that back from the lab, you'd complain.. yet you go out of
your way to ruin your own shots. What a waste of time, effort and money.
Why not just use any old crappy film you can get your hands on, let the
crappiest lab in town process your film for 1.99, and then just sort it all
out in PS? If the film is merely the "first draft" as I've heard suggested,
why bother to buy decent film that gives accurate colours? Who gives a
shit if you're only going to change them anyway? What a waste of time!
You probably choose films carefully, based upon years of experience, and
then just mutilate it PS.
>Most of my
> photos have people in them. Adults. Out go skin blemishes,
> soft go wrinkles, bright go diamonds, whiter go teeth,
> ..well, you get the picture. If the people I photographed
> CAME perfect now..
Exactly... you're cheating. Have you ever thought of photographing
people as they actually look? If you're selling a portrait to someone,
fine, they'll like it, but aren't you just a bit concerned that your photos
are essentially frauds? The people you photographed didn't actually look
like that. Even if you used make-up to achieve a similar effect, at least
you'd be photographing what's actually there, but you're not even doing
that. You're just making it up as you go along. Anyone can do that.
There's no skill in that. If C.J Morgan feels you should be commended fro
that, then he's got a strange idea of what warrants reward. I could take
any half competent portrait, and turn it into a good one in PhotoShop. Is
that right? What you're saying is that there's no need to exercise skill at
the taking stage any longer, as you can just tidy it all up in PS.
I just find it odd that all the finest photographers in the world keep
their digital post production work to a minimum (unless digital art was the
concept to begin with, or a commercial shoot for a magazine cover etc), and
it's just the amateurs doing all the jiggery pokery. It's just so easy and
convenient isn't it? Commended fro extra effort? <laugh> That's so
untrue. This is the easy way out. Using PhotoShop is easy - anyone can do
it. Just about every photo mag in the world has run a series of tutorials
in PS, you can get comprehensive books on it from any library. It isn't
rocket science. Any one can do what you're doing Earl - there's no skill
involved.
David.
Only me...
Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.05.99102...@baygate.bayarea.net...
> That's rather condescending, David.
>
> I do not have the time or space to do wet lab printing at present. All my
> printing is done using a negative scanner and image processing software.
> Not because I like to manipulate my pictures any more than I used to do
> with the enlarger, chemistry and paper selections, but because they are
> tools which allow me to print.
The guy in question said that he always scanned them into Photoshop, to
"enhance" them. There's a difference between adjusting gamma to match your
printer, and "enhancing" everything you take in Photoshop. Like you, the
only time anything gets changed, is to facilitate printing, but to mess with
every image you take to "improve" it is not good practice in my opinion.
Take you great black and white shots on your web site for instance. Other
than minimal adjustment to facilitate printing, or to match them to your
monitor, they needed no "enhancement". The man I was replying to stated
than every shot he takes is "enhanced" which implies that they NEED
enhancing, that film is not capable of accurately recording colour and
contrast. This of course is not true, and routinely adjusting everything
out of habit just results in photos with inaccurate colours. Like I said to
him, our eyes need no digital enhancement, so why do the images?
Digital should either be an expressive art form, or simply another
method of recording an image, but it's becoming this half-way thing as well,
where because the image is on a computer, it HAS to be manipulated in some
way, even when it doesn't need it. People who were wonderfully happy with
their slides up until buying a scanner, suddenly feel that the grass is not
green enough, or the sky blue enough... Why?
Routinely adjusting things for the sake of it is bad photography. If
you can't get screamingly saturated colours from underexposed Velvia, then
you're doing something wrong. I've got slides here that need to be
DE-saturated if anything! It's just a phase people go through when they
get a scanner.
I wasn't suggesting everyone who scans an image was a poor photographer,
just those who play with that image for want of something to do to it.
David.
Only me...
C. J. Morgan <ch...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:FKD0Ex.J2...@torfree.net...
> No need to feels sorry for them. Enhancing one's images seems about as
> natural to me as a writer who might want to refine a first draft.
Refining one's work, and refining one's images are different. To
routinely put all your work through PhotoShop, and ramp up the saturation,
contrast, or whatever else, is just saying that a camera and some film is
not good enough - that the world is not bright and colourful enough. Why?
Are slides taken 15 years ago insufficient in some way? Was the world a
more colourful place back then before scanners where readily available to
the masses?
>And if
> the technology is there so that a photographer's work can be crafted to
> create an image which has more clarity, directness and impact, I don't
> see any problem with this idea of enhancing the image.
The technology for that has been there for decades. You can give an
image directness, or impact without having lean on a digital crutch at every
turn. All this implies that photographs now, are better than they were
before everyone had scanners. This is not true. Photographs are generally
worse now. The problem with enhancing your own colours etc, is that it's
subjective. Just take a look at how some people have their TV set for
instance - orange faces, electric blue skies, and lime green grass...
Mmmmmm....... lovely ;-)
>
> To your question asking Earl why he doesn't just print the image
> straight, I would suggest the answer, at least in part, can be found in
> his words. The pictures he puts through Photoshop are the ones he deems
> as important. That implies he cares about them, and that he's willing to
> invest the time to make them better than just a "first draft."
Look, since when has a carefully exposed transparency been a first
draft? You're making it into one, simply because you can, and fro no other
reason. It's technology for the sake of it. Most people don't know when to
walk away, and accept that something's finished. You can only pump so much
colour into your work without it looking stupid. With films like Velvia and
Kodak EBX why do you feel the need to increase anything? These films give
more colour that you will ever see in real life, yet you STILL routinely
"enhance" them further. What is it you're enhancing? Is it colour? If it
is I suggest you're going to far. Is it contrast? Maybe that's acceptable,
but being a little more careful at the camera stage should render this
unnecessary. Sharpness? Ever heard of focusing, or a tripod?
I've seen people going to lengths such as selectively blurring a
background to give their subject more impact.... !!! Why not just
shoot at a wider aperture? You're MAKING work for yourselves most of the
time, just so you'll have something to do in PhotoShop.
>
> It's not about an inability to take good pictures. It's about starting
> with good pictures and refining them to make them even better.
So, how come all photos seem to need refining? Is it the case that
every photo ever taken needs "refining"? Who says that it IS refining them?
I just think you should look a little more carefully at the transparency
before you decide to ruin it. Most of these "enhanced" photographs I've
seen so far are just truly disgusting. If you can't set your TV properly,
then you'll not be enhancing your carefully exposed transparencies
either....
you'll be ruining them.
Why not just change things that need changing? You know, just minimal
adjuststment to match your printer for example.... why all this garish,
oversaturated crap that everyone suddenly thinks is so "life-like" I'm
looking out of my window now, and on this late October morning, there's not
a lot of colour around: Muted yellows of leaves, grey sky.... So, if I
photograph that, does that mean it needs to be PhotoShopped? No, it
doesn't. That's what grey October mornings look like. I put it to you,
that the photos you've taken look the way they are because that's what the
scene you photographed looked like. If something isn't sharp enough, or
you wish to remove somehting etc.. you should have just taken more care
when shooting it.
>And it's
> not about shoving ALL his images through Photoshop. It's about picking
> the ones he already deems important and making them even more special for
> presentation.
Well, he did say that he puts all his images through PhotoShop. I don't
think you're qualified to answer for him. You may be right, you may be
wrong, but my reply to him was based upon the fact that he said "all" his
work went through PhotoShop. This is what prompted me to ask why people
feel it's necessary to "enhance" every image they take.
>
> We wouldn't think much of a writer who would just gives us first drafts.
> And the same could be said of a photographer. Photoshop is one of those
> tools which affords us the opportunity to do more than just "first
> drafts."
Actually, you're wrong. There IS no parallel between photography and
writing. Your argument is flawed. What ever happened to the skill
required to make a perfect transparency in camera? People have been doing
this for decades, NOW all of a sudden, just because we can I might add,
people think that their work is not complete until it's been messed about
with digitally. Why? Black and white is different before you draw a
parallel to mono darkroom work. We perceive single tones prints differently,
that;s why using a heavy grad on a colour shot looks shit, but doesn't on a
black and white photo.
I think post manipulation of things like colour, sharpness etc are
merely attempts to cure the results of poor photography. Can you honestly
say that every image you manipulate is justified? Could you not have done
that in camera? Did that sky really need to be more blue? Could I not have
blurred that background more convincingly in-camera? I could go on, but
you get my point. I think most manipulation is for the sake of it. I've
even seen people spending hours printing a fine black and white print, and
then scan the damned thing, just to do what they could have done whilst they
were still in the darkroom. People just want to get involved; jump on the
bandwagon.
> And I, for one, think that kind of extra effort should be commended.
Even if it's just to ruin a great shot by "enhancing" the colour, or
sharpening an image that is already sharp, just to add some ghastly edge
fringing to it in the belief that it is actually sharper? I think this is
not be commended at all. IF you want to commend people for extra effort,
it's
a shame you're not commending people for taking the extra effort at the
taking stage, then maybe all this digital "enhancement" wouldn't even be
necessary.
David.
Raskolnikov
(reasonable) irrespective of format. The paper is very definitely portrait
paper though... Don't run your contrast & saturation-dependent landscapes
through these guys.
In article <7vahgj$lu4$7...@gxsn.com>, "Only me..."
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> flyboy803 <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:17599f0b...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
> >
> > Agreed, the price isn't that huge in buying film and getting the usual
> > prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
> > standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
> > changes enough to at least be a consideration...
> >
> > For instance; a local pro lab is charging me $12 for a ten inch square
> > enlargement, and while this isn't a hardship for me, it could be for
> > others...with 35mm,
>
>
Raskolnikov
but someone's worthy of pity if they want to sharpen in Photoshop?
I've seen an awful lot of crappy digital, but I've also seen that
a properly corrected drum scan of about 500 dpi final resolution
(that is, 4000 dpi for an 8 x 10 off of 35) can really stomp
an optical print. Sadly, scanners aren't yet of high enough resolution
to go much beyond 8x (and still be better than optical - you can get an
O.K. 16x print, but it won't be better than an optical print)- they're
geared towards the needs of offset printing, not output to a Fuji
Pictography.
People are NEVER perfect - they always have blood vessels in their eyes,
pimples, stray hairs, you name it. How many years do you think it's been
since a Vogue cover girl hasn't been worked over ruthlessly in the
computer?
Do you feel sorry for Vogue's photographer's because they're so pathetic?
Photoshop gives you nearly effortlessly the Holy Grail of the Zone System -
your highlight and shadow values precisely where you want them, with
precisely the desired amount of contrast. You can try 17 different crops
side by
side in the time it would take to do one in the darkroom. And no, the sky
never is blue enough and the grass never is green enough - that's the
whole premise behind Velvia, remember? What about these people - are you
going to feel sorry for everyone who uses Velvia too?
For what it's worth (hopefully very little), I feel sorry for you too.
In article <7vbitk$ka5$2...@gxsn.com>, "Only me..."
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Earl Fieldman <efie...@anywehere.net> wrote in message
> news:uHY9nOcI$GA.326@cpmsnbbsa02...
>
>
> > BUT
> > All of my important pictures these days go through some form
> > of enhancement in Photoshop.
>
>
> Why? Can you no longer take good photographs? Why do people just
> automatically shove all their images through PhotoShop? Is the sky never
> blue enough for you, or the grass green? Digital just for the sake of it is
> poor practice. Unless you always do some sort of montage work, or need to
> retouch every image you take, why not just print it straight. Why do you
> feel a need to "enhance" them? Do you feel a need to "enhance" your eyes
> when you look out over a wonderful landscape?
>
> I feel sorry for you.
>
>
> David.
Raskolnikov
can use a second lens (that only covers a 3 inch strip of the bed - plenty
for MF) to produce 3000 x 3000 dpi scans. Not quite drum quality,
but enough to put 120 back in its rightful place as superior to 35.
But it's still $6,000ish, and my wife unreasonabley won't let me sell the car :(
In article <Pine.NEB.4.05.99102...@baygate.bayarea.net>,
Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote:
> That's rather condescending, David.
>
> I do not have the time or space to do wet lab printing at present. All my
> printing is done using a negative scanner and image processing software.
> Not because I like to manipulate my pictures any more than I used to do
> with the enlarger, chemistry and paper selections, but because they are
> tools which allow me to print.
>
Raskolnikov
Obviously couldn't take a good photograph to save his soul - he had
to spend hours futzing with everu one of them in the darkroom, dodging, burning,
wadding up and trying again. They looked great when he was done, but so what?
If he'd been a competent photographer he'd have gotten it right in the
first place and he could have "just printed it straight"
John Halliwell
<fo...@aol.com> writes
>To many people assume that just because you do digital work and that you print
>out digital pictures that you must have done something so radical to have made
>them look good. Surely you could not make that same picture without a computer.
>Not every person that does digital work is concerned about moving one persons
>head to anothers body or goofy things like that. As for me I am mainly
>concerned about getting color as accurate as possible and making sure the
>brightness/darkness is right. Nothing different from someone trying to get a
>good print the traditional way. I had one guy at work ask me sarcastically if I
>made "made that picture on a computer" and my answer was "you are an idiot".
> I wasn't in a good mood that day. :)
What's the life span of the colours in printer ink? I've heard stories
it starts to fade after 3 years. If this is the case, those "accurate
colours" don't last very long. I know wet prints fade, but not nearly as
quickly.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
easily use the phrase "enhancing my images" instead of "preparing my
images for the printer" without changing what I do. Perhaps there is
simply a semantic ambiguity causing this debate.
I adjust the tonal scale, do whatever cropping is necessary, spot, size,
sometimes remove elements that were unavoidable, straighten, etc. If I
have a negative with problems, I use the tools to minimize the problems
if the negative was desireable enough. I'm always happiest when I have
little work to do and strive for the best negative I can, but even when
I was doing my printing in the wet lab, I did the same things.
My goal, except on rare occasion, is to present a fine photograph.
Sometimes that requires more "preparation" or "enhancement" than others.
There are two/three pictures on my website that required rather more
preparation than I usually do ... the result was to produce a pleasing
photograph which expressed what I wanted it to.
Godfrey
"Only me..." wrote:
>
> Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.05.99102...@baygate.bayarea.net...
>
> > That's rather condescending, David.
> >
> > I do not have the time or space to do wet lab printing at present. All my
> > printing is done using a negative scanner and image processing software.
> > Not because I like to manipulate my pictures any more than I used to do
> > with the enlarger, chemistry and paper selections, but because they are
> > tools which allow me to print.
>
12546
without the benefit of examining the goods before paying. I have been
e-screwed by reputable firms who act as intermediates for third parties,
BUT, I had no problems returning the goods for a complete refund from the
broker ( uBid). I have never considered buying privately through ebay. To
much trouble with the reputable firms.
Paul
Austin
flyboy803 <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17599f0b...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
>
> Agreed, the price isn't that huge in buying film and getting the usual
> prints...I shoot 6x6 and find the price pretty much acceptable for the
> standard 5 inch square prints, but once you start enlarging, the game
> changes enough to at least be a consideration...
>
> For instance; a local pro lab is charging me $12 for a ten inch square
> enlargement, and while this isn't a hardship for me, it could be for
Zeuspaul
>can use a second lens (that only covers a 3 inch strip of the bed - >plenty for MF) to produce 3000 x 3000 dpi scans. Not quite drum >quality, but enough to put 120 back in its rightful place as superior >to 35.
>But it's still $6,000ish, and my wife unreasonabley won't let me sell >the car :
Any thoughts on the Agfa Duoscan T-2500 multiformat scanner vs the
Powerlook 3000? It also has a second lens for the 2500 dpi scans. The
price is $4000ish.
I want to get into medium format but digitizing the images seems to be a
stumbling block. I can get 2500 dpi scans of 35mm at the local lab at
time of developing for $16. At this price I have not had to purchace my
own film scanner.
I have not been able to find a similar deal for medium format scans.
The price jumps a bunch just to scan a larger negative. It seems like
the labs are missing out on an opportunity here.
Zeuspaul
Only me...
> Hmm. I didn't get that sense of it from the conversation, David. I
could
>easily use the phrase "enhancing my images" instead of "preparing my
>images for the printer" without changing what I do. Perhaps there is
>simply a semantic ambiguity causing this debate.
Perhaps. I feel that his use of the word "enhance" rather than scan
implied that he's of the variety that likes to play with everything he
scans. Adjusting an image so that the print and the transparency match is
just something you don't call "enhancing". In fact, you don't call it
anything, because it's just something one has to do.
>I adjust the tonal scale, do whatever cropping is necessary, spot, size,
>sometimes remove elements that were unavoidable, straighten, etc. If I
>have a negative with problems, I use the tools to minimize the problems
>if the negative was desirable enough. I'm always happiest when I have
>little work to do and strive for the best negative I can, but even when
>I was doing my printing in the wet lab, I did the same things.
Spotting and cropping is obviously not an issue here, as that has to be
done whatever process you adopt - wet or digital. However, adjusting the
tonal scale is something I would rather do during development. I've built
up an arsenal of developers that can make the most of a negative - from
Ansel Adams' D23 2 bath dev, to pure lith devs. All have a differing effect
upon tonal range, and all better than anything you can hope to do digitally.
The problem with adjusting the tonality of an image digitally, is that
you're not doing really. You can increase or decrease contrast, or play
with the curves to simulate the changes in tonality you get with various
films and developers, but the results always seem false. This may not be a
problem when viewed on a screen, as no monitor can simulate a fine print,
either silver, or a good digital print, but when it IS printed, it will not
appear as it should. At least to my eyes. Whilst we continue to shoot on
film, by far the best way to adjust such things as tonality, is by our
choice of film and developer. he digital option is something that should be
considered when all others fail, as it just makes sense to use the highest
quality method first, and then work your way down. It's not a
digital/analogue issue, just a matter of using the nest methods available to
me.
>My goal, except on rare occasion, is to present a fine photograph.
>Sometimes that requires more "preparation" or "enhancement" than others.
>There are two/three pictures on my website that required rather more
>preparation than I usually do ... the result was to produce a pleasing
>photograph which expressed what I wanted it to.
That's always the goal. However, some people would use this as an
excuse to be lazy. I know of many who would prefer to shoot, process and
get the film scanned as fast as possible, simply to get it over with,
because it's easier to do it on a computer. The fact is though, the best
results are obtained by not using a computer. No matter how good an image
looks if it's scanned from a negative, I can always better it with an
enlarger... always. The literally hand on approach makes it more
expressive. Very contrasty negatives cause a problem for scanners. With a
scan, you can only enhance, or attenuate what's present in the image, and a
very contrasty negative will simply result in highlights that wash out, or
shadows that block up. Even a very bad neg can still be printed, because
the information is usually still there to a degree, but once an image
exceeds the scanners ability, bits of it are missing, forever, and no amount
of adjustment will bring it back.
Obviously, not producing such a negative is the answer, for both you and
I though. I still feel that digital is a last resort. I have the
capability, and if people insist upon it, I provide it, but the very best of
results is always obtained by conventional means.... so far.
Regards,
David.
Only me...
Raskolnikov <Woo...@liketa.no> wrote in message
news:Woodnu-3010...@sandiego5-15.sandiego.access1.net...
> While we're feeling sorry for people, how about that poor hack Ansel
Adams.
>
> Obviously couldn't take a good photograph to save his soul - he had
> to spend hours futzing with everu one of them in the darkroom, dodging,
burning,
> wadding up and trying again. They looked great when he was done, but so
what?
> If he'd been a competent photographer he'd have gotten it right in the
> first place and he could have "just printed it straight"
>
Oh dear.... You're about the 8th person to try this tenuous argument.
It's neither amusing, or accurate. Adams previsualised a shot, and then
exposed, processed and printed it with that revisualization in mind. Most
manipulations were actually done during exposure and processing, giving him
a negative that would require the minimum of printing (except Moonrise
Hernandez, which was an accident). Now, if you can honestly put your hand
upon your heart and say that you have the same approach as that, then fine,
you're a photographer. However, if the "photographers" I know in real life
are anything to go by, they do no such thing. They don't pre-visualise a
thing. They just rely upon PhotoShop, knowing that any deficiencies can be
rectified at a later date. One idiot I know relies upon using even scrap
negatives to make composites that look quite impressive. Whilst this is art
in it's own right, and the images are nice, is he a photographer? Is he
f**k!! He's a digital artist. A photographer produces images with a
camera, not a computer. You make the mistake of thinking that if the
original image was captured with a camera, especially a film camera, than
that makes you a photographer because you can make a nice image out of it in
PhotoShop. It doesn't though. Unless you merely spot your images, and then
correct for differences between the monitor image and the printed one, and
no more, or perhaps local dodging and burning, then you go beyond
photography, and into image manipulation proper. This is not an
anti-digital argument either,as I feel the same way about people who heavily
manipulate images in a darkroom, creating a whole new image out of nothing.
They're not photographers, they're printers, and artists sure, but their not
photographers.
David.
Only me...
Raskolnikov <Woo...@liketa.no> wrote in message
news:Woodnu-3010...@sandiego5-15.sandiego.access1.net...
> (reasonable) irrespective of format. The paper is very definitely portrait
> paper though... Don't run your contrast & saturation-dependent landscapes
> through these guys.
Even when you consider that 120 is more expensive to print if you
require the best paper, the best printers, and the very best care taken, it
is not THAT much more expensive than 35mm printing, and surely can not be
used as an argument against moving from 35mm to 120. They may, or may not
be a myriad of reasons, but the price of prints is not one of them.
David.
Only me...
Raskolnikov <Woo...@liketa.no> wrote in message
news:Woodnu-3010...@sandiego5-15.sandiego.access1.net...
> but someone's worthy of pity if they want to sharpen in Photoshop?
You can't sharpen what's not there. A common misunderstanding this.
You're not sharpening the image at all when you sharpen it in PS. Besides,
why would it need to be sharpened? It should be in focus already, surely?
>
> I've seen an awful lot of crappy digital, but I've also seen that
> a properly corrected drum scan of about 500 dpi final resolution
> (that is, 4000 dpi for an 8 x 10 off of 35) can really stomp
> an optical print. Sadly, scanners aren't yet of high enough resolution
> to go much beyond 8x (and still be better than optical - you can get an
> O.K. 16x print, but it won't be better than an optical print)- they're
> geared towards the needs of offset printing, not output to a Fuji
> Pictography.
Yeah.. right. We can all afford, or even find the space for a drum
scanner... get real. Besides, the difference is not as great as you think,
and it most certainly would not "stomp" an optical print. Fuji's Picto
printers aren't as great as all that you know? I've seen some VERY nice
offset printing indeed. It's all a load of crap anyhow... the numbers mean
nothing. Even a 2500dpi scan of a 35mm neg is more than enough to capture
every detail. It's about dynamic range, not resolution. Why's everyone
so obsessed with resolution. If you equate 35mm photograph to dpi terms,
you'll realise that digital has actually surpassed 35mm in terms of
resolution in some hardware - It still can't produce the same quality
though.
>
> People are NEVER perfect - they always have blood vessels in their eyes,
> pimples, stray hairs, you name it. How many years do you think it's been
> since a Vogue cover girl hasn't been worked over ruthlessly in the
> computer?
I do believe I've said elsewhere in this thread, countless times, that
magazine covers are NOT what I'm referring to here. They're just a
convenient crutch to lean on during this argument aren't they? They serve
the vanity of the model more than anything else, it certainly doesn't give
the photographer any additional credit, not that he'd need it anyway if he's
shooting for vogue, but when an amateur applies the same treatment to his
landscapes, who benefiting there? The trees? No, the photographer is.
No matter what you think, it's now possible for anyone half competent in
Photoshop to turn a crap photo into a decent one, and a half decent one into
a great one. That's fine. I've no problem with that. What I have a
problem with, is that people think that's photography - that the person's
skill as a photographer is what made the photograph. This is not so though,
is it? Surely, his skill as a Photoshop operator made the photograph,
because prior to retouching, it was a mediocre photograph, making him a
mediocre photographer in reality. People want to be good photographers
rather than good Photoshop artists, so would rather have the credit for eth
original photo, which was crap, by using their skill in PhotoShop to enhance
it. You're only fooling yourselves.
> Do you feel sorry for Vogue's photographer's because they're so pathetic?
No. They got where they are by being talented, not by "enhancing"
their dull images in Photoshop. When a student hands me nice photo to
appraise at college, I always ask to see his contact sheet too, to see
what's been done to it. Anyone can crop out poor composition, and adjust
the contrast of a poorly exposed negative, but does that make them a good
photographer, or a good printer? I think it makes them a good printer more
than it does a photographer. Same with a digitally enhanced shot. Unless
the original image is as good as the digital vomit spewed forth, they're
just a Photoshop artist, not a photographer.
If you can't compose a photograph inside a viewfinder, then you're not a
photographer.
You can try 17 different crops
> side by
> side in the time it would take to do one in the darkroom.
How about getting your composition right in-camera for a change... ever
considered that?
>And no, the sky
> never is blue enough and the grass never is green enough - that's the
> whole premise behind Velvia, remember? What about these people - are you
> going to feel sorry for everyone who uses Velvia too?
I am if they still don't think it's colourful enough, yes. Velvia is
almost too much at times, yet they still want to increase the colour. Why?
> Photoshop gives you nearly effortlessly the Holy Grail of the Zone
System -
No it does not. Besides, that's my point... effortlessly. So, if it's
effortless, why does that make the "photographer" who produced the work as
talented as one who uses the real zone system... remember that, the one
that requires talent, and skill to apply? Surely if it's effortless, anyone
can do it, therefore rendering it a pretty empty accolade. The image itself
is just as valid as an image, I grant you that, but you're less responsible
for it's creation as a photographer than you would be otherwise. You're
biggest responsibility was as a Photoshop artist, not a photographer.
> For what it's worth (hopefully very little), I feel sorry for you too.
It means nothing to me, because I can rest assured that what I produce
is a result of years of education, dedication, and skill. You on the other
hand can not make such claims, because unless your photography can stand on
it;s own merits, and not need to be cropped, sharpened, enhanced, filtered,
and otherwise "made better", you're just a Photoshop artist, not a
photographer. If you readily admit to adjusting everything possible,
cropping, and altering the tonal scale, what precisely is left for you to
take credit for as a photographer? You captured the donor image - big deal.
What's on the lightbox is the result of your photography... anything else
is a result of being a Photoshop retoucher/operator/artist(?) - but NOT a
photographer. The truth is, I look at what's on my lightbox, and have no
desire to alter a thing, because it doesn't need it. Your pity is better
saved for one who needs it.
David.
Earl Fieldman
Only me... wrote in message <7vffq3$fn7$5...@gxsn.com>...
This is not an
>anti-digital argument either,as I feel the same way about people who
heavily
>manipulate images in a darkroom, creating a whole new image out of nothing.
>They're not photographers, they're printers, and artists sure, but their
not
>photographers.
I for one am soliciting neither your contribution to my cause nor your
purchase of my product, nor do I desire your government to
forcefully transfer from you to me the slightest token of your
involuntary appreciation.
Maybe you could take this what-kinds-of-art-I-don't-like
stuff up with those who ARE after your money.
Earl F.
Bob Wheeler
printers. There are special inks which extend
life, at the cost of a limited color gamut.
However, sending them off to a LightJet 5000 to be
printed on Fuji Archival paper will produce prints
that last as long if not longer than any other
color printing method. The cost for such prints is
about the same as for Cibachromes.
--
Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: bwhe...@echip.com)
ECHIP, Inc.
gi...@lava.net
> Digital should either be an expressive art form, or simply another
>method of recording an image, but it's becoming this half-way thing as
>well, where because the image is on a computer, it HAS to be manipulated
>in some way, even when it doesn't need it. People who were wonderfully
>happy with their slides up until buying a scanner, suddenly feel that the
>grass is not green enough, or the sky blue enough... Why?
Maybe, Dave, it's because unlike you, they are artisticly inclined.
Artists will use ANY medium necessary to be more expressive.
One thing that any PROFESSIONAL photographer needs when they take on a
shooting assignment is to know how the image will be displayed. If it is
necessary to digitize the image, then it is necessary to go through
Photoshop.
> Routinely adjusting things for the sake of it is bad photography.
Opening your mouth about things of which you have no knowlege is bad
form...
If
>you can't get screamingly saturated colours from underexposed Velvia,
>then you're doing something wrong.
Maybe saturated colors is not the only thing one is looking for from an
image.
>I've got slides here that need to be DE-saturated if anything!
Sounds like bad photography to me...
>It's just a phase people go through when they get a scanner.
No, it's a tool that some people learn to use...
> I wasn't suggesting everyone who scans an image was a poor
>photographer, just those who play with that image for want of something
>to do to it.
Experimentation is the best thing any photographer can do to improve their
image making...
Imitating OnlyDave would make photography pretty boring stuff...
gi...@lava.net
>starts to fade after 3 years. If this is the case, those "accurate
>colours" don't last very long. I know wet prints fade, but not nearly as
>quickly.
Digital can be printed on standard photographic process paper. Noritsu
makes a rather nice High Res Digital Printer. Light Jet makes a film
recorder than can record the images back on film with such high res it
takes a microscope to see any difference...
The technology is here...
gi...@lava.net
> It's just crap, all of
>it.
The only thing that is crap is your continued insistence that you are the
only one whose vision of photography is correct.
Photography is not limited by OnlyDave's idea of what photography should
be. Until you get secure enough to accept this, maybe you should consider
giving up Usenet...
>>
>> Maybe all of YOUR photographs are the best in the world and can't be
>> improved, but that does not make them necessarily ready for the print
>> media world...
> Yes they are. The only things that are changed, are things that need
>to be changes to make the final print look the SAME as the transparency.
>I have no problem with that, and if that's all you do, why are you
>arguing with me? You must be one of those people that saturate colours
>to ludicrous levels, retouch everything, and make the world look a nicer
>place to be.... Anyone can do that Gino. Using Photoshop is easy. Any
>half-wit can take a crap shot and manipulate it into a half decent one.
You are a moron Dave. You don't have a clue about digital imaging anyone
can see by these last statements.
Portrait customers do want to look as perfect as possible. It's their
money and they deserve to get what they are paying for.
I work with a lot of performers and sometimes they like concepts like over
saturated colors. Sometimes they like blends, and warps and blurs.
>These people are under the impression they're photographers though.
>They're not, they're PhotoShop operators. They sit in offices all day,
>doing just what you advocate as good photography all day long. Anyone
>can do it.
Pretty funny Dave. You know all those people??? Most of them make more
money than you ever will...
>>
>> You might have a good grip on your camera, but the one on your life is
>> slipping too easily...
> Yeah, yeah..... It can carry on slipping then so far as I'm
>concerned. I'm earning more now than I ever did. I could live very
>comfortably off the income my stock photography alone generates, not to
>mention the commissions, as if I care what you think.
You do... That's why you respond to me...
>> You ARE about the sorriest person I've ever encountered....
> You've never encountered me Gino, and I never apologise for anything.
That's because you are a horse' ass, Dave.
>David.
gi...@lava.net
>C. J. Morgan <ch...@torfree.net> wrote in message
>news:FKD0Ex.J2...@torfree.net...
>> No need to feels sorry for them. Enhancing one's images seems about as
>> natural to me as a writer who might want to refine a first draft.
> Refining one's work, and refining one's images are different.
When one's images are one's work, there is no difference...
To
>routinely put all your work through PhotoShop, and ramp up the
>saturation, contrast, or whatever else, is just saying that a camera and
>some film is not good enough - that the world is not bright and colourful
>enough. Why? Are slides taken 15 years ago insufficient in some way? Was
>the world a more colourful place back then before scanners where readily
>available to the masses?
The world has changed considerably. Only an idiot wouldn't realize that...
> The technology for that has been there for decades. You can give an
>image directness, or impact without having lean on a digital crutch at
>every turn. All this implies that photographs now, are better than
>they were before everyone had scanners. This is not true. Photographs
>are generally worse now. The problem with enhancing your own colours
>etc, is that it's subjective. Just take a look at how some people have
>their TV set for instance - orange faces, electric blue skies, and lime
>green grass... Mmmmmm....... lovely ;-)
Subjective is what art and photography are all about. Everyone has their
own ideas. They don't have to be little monkeys like Dave and do every
thing the same way as the next person...
Michael Tremblay
a good analogy. Perhaps a writer having a draft checked by one of
these grammar/style checkers might be more appropriate: it is a
crutch or support to a creative process. Even better its more like
me rewriting Hemingway, using a grammar checker.
Digital enhancement moves the picture outside of the realm of
photography and into something else, since we have dumped the
original image and are now manipulating the result.
Digital enhancement is fine for what it helps you do, but it doesn't
replace the pleasure of capturing the moment, to spend hours in
front of photoshop.
In article <eJJXmeoI$GA.111@cpmsnbbsa03>, Earl Fieldman
<efie...@anywehere.net> writes
>
>C. J. Morgan wrote in message ...
>> Enhancing one's images seems about as
>>natural to me as a writer who might want to refine a first draft. And if
>>the technology is there so that a photographer's work can be crafted to
>>create an image which has more clarity, directness and impact, I don't
>>see any problem with this idea of enhancing the image.
>
>
>Wow, thanks. I couldn't have said it any more eloquently myself.
>
>Earl F.
>
>
Mike Tremblay
Anders Svensson
The "digital darkroom" concept is not very far from the "analog darkroom" in
terms of principles, but I agree that there are possibilities that exist in
photoshop that are very hard to emulate in the oldfashioned ways. There *are*
a lot of time honored techniques that are applied after capturing the shot in
traditional photography, too.
I think we are seeing a dscussion here that is very similar to the purist vs
the pragmatist debate in many other art forms.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Halliwell
>Digital can be printed on standard photographic process paper. Noritsu
>makes a rather nice High Res Digital Printer. Light Jet makes a film
>recorder than can record the images back on film with such high res it
>takes a microscope to see any difference...
>
>The technology is here...
The technology has been around for a while, I agree. My comment is that
very few photographers (relatively) go through this process. Most (the
vast majority) just print them from inkjet printers, thinking in the
process they're doing "rocket science". Many (who haven't the faintest
idea about decent photo quality) have a go at wet film users, claiming
mega-pixel this is better than 35mm ('cos the salesman told 'em).
The photographer who has access to drum scanners etc. and who passes his
work to a publishing house digitally, is totally different to those who
"hack" their shots in PS (largely because they can) and then print it
out with an inkjet.
Personally I'd rather get it right in camera and not have to spend the
time in PS later. I mainly shoot slides, have no need for PS and don't
use it.
Only me...
Gino, this is a repeat performance of the last time you came on here.
You are only responding to my posts - no one else's. What's your problem
Gino? I think you secretly have some sort of cyber crush on me, and you're
stalking me ;-) Forget it Gino, where just not right for one another...
it'll never work. It's for the best.
(plop) Gino falls whimpering into my kill-file.
David.
Only me...
<gi...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:381bd473$1$tvab$mr2...@news.lava.net...
> In <7veh31$3nd$3...@gxsn.com>, on 10/30/99
> Maybe, Dave, it's because unlike you, they are artistically inclined.
> Artists will use ANY medium necessary to be more expressive.
...but, by you, NOT using digital is regarded as NOT being artistic?
Seems like there's a little flaw in your argument somewhere Gino. Surely if
an artist will use ANY means to be more expressive, that means he can use
film alone too doesn't it? Oh... I see.... you were talking shit. That
explains it then.
> Opening your mouth about things of which you have no knowlege is bad
> form...
Yes... I remember why I killfiled you on my last computer now.
Goodbye Gino.
David.
Only me...
Michael Tremblay <Mi...@rainmakr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UxYKeCA9...@rainmakr.demon.co.uk...
> Digital enhancement moves the picture outside of the realm of
> photography and into something else, since we have dumped the
> original image and are now manipulating the result.
At least there's at least ONE person out there who's capable of seeing
my point without being SCARED of saying anything anti-digital, for fear of
being labelled a dinosaur, or unfashionable or something.
David.
Only me...
<gi...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:381bd74a$3$tvab$mr2...@news.lava.net...
> In <7veh2v$3nd$2...@gxsn.com>, on 10/30/99
> Photography is not limited by OnlyDave's idea of what photography should
> be. Until you get secure enough to accept this, maybe you should consider
> giving up Usenet...
Oh dear... If I remember correctly Gino, the last time YOU started
throwing your weight around on here, you were practically lynched by the
mob.
It;s not a popularity contest you immature little man. It's a discussion
forum.
> You are a moron Dave. You don't have a clue about digital imaging anyone
> can see by these last statements.
Yes, of course Gino.... ;-)
> Portrait customers do want to look as perfect as possible. It's their
> money and they deserve to get what they are paying for.
I do believe I said that myself.
> I work with a lot of performers and sometimes they like concepts like over
> saturated colors. Sometimes they like blends, and warps and blurs.
So? What the f**k are you talking about? So what if they like you to
rub baby oil all over them? Is that photography? You're a PhotoShop artist
in that case, not a Photographer.
> Pretty funny Dave. You know all those people??? Most of them make more
> money than you ever will...
Actually Gino, I know many Apple Mac operators, and none of them make
above £18,000 per year. It's actually a crap job Gino. Every once in a
while someone will convince someone else that they're a PhotoShop "artist",
but it's a pretty thin line to tread. Using Photoshop is easy, that's the
problem. Anyone can do it.
> You do... That's why you respond to me...
I'm responding to your current posts because I've seen them. I am
however, going to kill-file you after this exchange, just like I had you
kill-filed on my last computer. You slipped through the net by accident,
not design. I care nothing for your opinions. You're not capable of having
a civil debate Gino, you start shouting, and being insulting and behaving
like a little boy. As always, I seem to annoy you - jealousy is terrible
Gino, and you should try to control it a little better. It's bad for you.
> That's because you are a horse' ass, Dave.
Really? Nothing to do with the fact that I'm half-way around the world,
and you have not the faintest idea who I am? Oh.. OK then.
David.
Only me...
> I for one am soliciting neither your contribution to my cause nor your
> purchase of my product, nor do I desire your government to
> forcefully transfer from you to me the slightest token of your
> involuntary appreciation.
>
> Maybe you could take this what-kinds-of-art-I-don't-like
> stuff up with those who ARE after your money.
The last time I checked Mr Fieldman, this is a democratic country that
allows one to freely express his or her opinion(s). Whilst you may not
appreciate, or even be interested in the discussion, it is a valid debate
about the merits, and usefulness of digital technology in photography.
Whilst I also appreciate your attempt at wry humour, you would be best
served I think, by simply not taking part in the thread, and perhaps adding
the subject heading to your kill filter, then you'll not have to suffer the
disturbing experience of this debate again.
David.
W.N.(Bill) McCaw
> snip
> > It's just crap, all of
> >it.
>
> The only thing that is crap is your continued insistence that you are the
> only one whose vision of photography is correct.
>
> be. Until you get secure enough to accept this, maybe you should consider
> giving up Usenet...
>
> >These people are under the impression they're photographers though.
> >They're not, they're PhotoShop operators. They sit in offices all day,
> >doing just what you advocate as good photography all day long. Anyone
> >can do it.
>
> money than you ever will...
>
> >>
> >> slipping too easily...
>
> > Yeah, yeah..... It can carry on slipping then so far as I'm
> >concerned. I'm earning more now than I ever did. I could live very
> >comfortably off the income my stock photography alone generates, not to
> >mention the commissions, as if I care what you think.
>
>
>
> > You've never encountered me Gino, and I never apologise for anything.
>
>
discussion.
There is a real difference between the original image as photography and
the use of digital enhancement to make a new image. It is a different
art form any way you look at it.
Another of David's concerns that has bothered me for the last several
years is the use of re imaging stuff for the evening news and newspaper
photos. We have all lost a great sense of reality when looking at a
photographic image now that there is no way to tell whether or not we
are seeing what is or was really there when the picture was purportedly
taken.
Perhaps the basic point is that when one tends to run most of their
stuff through photoshop for "enhancements" they should be up front with
people that they actually created the effect with the computer instead
of through the lens.
It is a little like serving a great dish out of the can and telling
people that it was prepared by slaving over a stove isn't it?
--
Cheers! W.N.(Bill) McCaw
"When is doubt, Act like a pro!!"
Earl Fieldman
Only me... wrote in message <7vh8d5$686$5...@gxsn.com>...
>> Maybe you could take this what-kinds-of-art-I-don't-like
>> stuff up with those who ARE after your money.
>
> The last time I checked Mr Fieldman, this is a democratic country that
>allows one to freely express his or her opinion(s)
Well, I didn't have restricting your expression in mind at
all.
But imagine if I were to start attacking, say, the production
of photographs of people's warts. "That's not photograpy".
"It's ugly and misses the human spirit", and so on.
Someone might point out to me that I could simply
decline to purchase such photographs. I would, and
I know a lot of other people who would join me in
such a "boycott'.
Now feel free to use your right of expression to find
those who would join you in boycotting digitally
enhanced photographs.
Earl F.
James W.(Jim) Simmons
Just a comment. Remember all the teachings on darkroom techniques, burning
in, ect., ect, just to make up for poor exposure. Now many use digital
techniques to do the same thing. All of this would not be needed if the
picture was taken correctly to begain with. Anything done after the
exposure has been made, adjustment of processing times, burning in, toning,
ect., is in effect, enhancing or changing the original, be it in the
darkroom or on the computer. As for people calling other people names, ie.
horse' ass, if you have the balls to walk-up a man and say it, O.K. But to
do that on the Internet is like sending note in grade school, telling
someone, my daddy is bigger than your daddy.
James W.(Jim) Simmons
Morehead, KY USA
Zeuspaul
Only if you define the discussion as purist vs the rest of us...and that
is debatable. Why is someone who alters colors with one's choice of
film pure while someone who alters colors in an image editor not even
considered a photographer. A bit radical in my opinion. Some
photographs never touch film. Is a digital camera not a camera? Does
one have to have interchangeable CCDs if one wants to be considered a
photographer?
> Another of David's concerns that has bothered me for the last several
> years is the use of re imaging stuff for the evening news and >newspaper photos. We have all lost a great sense of reality when >looking at a photographic image now that there is no way to tell >whether or not we are seeing what is or was really there when the >picture was purportedly taken.
A bit naive in my opinion. Only the tools have changed. Altered
photographs and public deception have been around for a long time.
>Perhaps the basic point is that when one tends to run most of their
>stuff through photoshop for "enhancements" they should be up front with
>people that they actually created the effect with the computer instead
>of through the lens.
Or perhaps the purists should certify their work. Organic food produces
label their food as organic. The masses eat the rest of the
stuff..whatever it is..one should not classify anything non organic as
junk food.
David started this with some condescending remarks to another
photographer so he could espouse his own virtues. There are better ways
of promoting ones views. Stepping on others puts one in the low class
category IMO.
Zeuspaul
wcm...@attglobal.net
>
> Raskolnikov <Woo...@liketa.no> wrote in message
> news:Woodnu-3010...@sandiego5-15.sandiego.access1.net...
> > So it's worth spending hundreds of dollars for a sharper lens,
> > but someone's worthy of pity if they want to sharpen in Photoshop?
>
> You can't sharpen what's not there. A common misunderstanding this.
> You're not sharpening the image at all when you sharpen it in PS.
Sure you are. You should have seen all those moon and mars pictures
before they were sharpened with digital filters. By giving more emphasis
to the high spatial frequencies ( or attenuating the low frequencies,
whatever ), you sharpen the image. In the process, you probably end up
losing low frequency stuff that was in the original scene, so the image
is degraded in that sense; But you do sharpen it.
C. J. Morgan
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
Only me... (davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk) wrote (in response to Michael
Tremblay's comments):
: At least there's at least ONE person out there who's capable of seeing
: my point...
Michael Tremblay <Mi...@rainmakr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: > Digital enhancement moves the picture outside of the realm of
: > photography and into something else, since we have dumped the
: > original image and are now manipulating the result.
I don't know Michael. I use to spent upteen hours working in a darkroom,
burning, dodging, refining -- all this in an effort to get a really good
print. Now I do that with Photoshop. I find it much more accurate, much
less time consuming, much less wasteful for materials, and much more
satisfying to achieve the results I'm out to get. I don't think I've
ever though of this digital enhancement work as being "outside of the
realm of photography" any more than when I was doing it in the darkroom.
To the contrary, I find such digital tools much more exacting and
enjoyable to my work as a photographer.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
John Stewart
> I think a writer enhancing a draft by redrafting and rewriting is not
> a good analogy. Perhaps a writer having a draft checked by one of
> these grammar/style checkers might be more appropriate: it is a
> crutch or support to a creative process. Even better its more like
> me rewriting Hemingway, using a grammar checker.
>
> photography and into something else, since we have dumped the
> original image and are now manipulating the result.
>
> replace the pleasure of capturing the moment, to spend hours in
> front of photoshop.
>
>
>
> In article <eJJXmeoI$GA.111@cpmsnbbsa03>, Earl Fieldman
> <efie...@anywehere.net> writes
Would it be reasonable to say that, in either chemical or digital
photography, the dodging, burning, etc. is used to make up for lack of tonal
gradiation inherent in the materials used? Most of the Zone System is
really about (a) absolute standardization of the process for repeatable
results, and (b) matching the range of tones that the film and paper can
record to the image via exposure, processing and dodging, etc.
Digital is even more restrictive with about 256 shades to each primary
color.
If we had some media that matched the human eye, much of this would not be
necessary. John radi...@means.net
John Stewart
> What's the life span of the colours in printer ink? I've heard stories
> it starts to fade after 3 years. If this is the case, those "accurate
> colours" don't last very long. I know wet prints fade, but not nearly as
> quickly.
> John
>
> Preston, Lancs, UK.
As June Allyson says in the famous incontinence TV ads, "Depends!" It
depends on the paper and ink being used, and whether a coating has been
applied. The typical snap that one cranks out on the $100 printer using
standard paper and inks won't last long, as there is a chemical in the ink
that keeps it flowing in the cartridge AND also absorbs/releases moisture on
the print. This degrades the image.
Coating the image helps, as does using more archival papers from Luminos and
others. Luminos claims to have archival inks, but only for Epson printers.
John Stewart
author of "How To Buy Your First Digital Camera!" PC CD ROM
www.acpress.com
gi...@lava.net
>Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
>news:381B0F91...@bayarea.net...
> Perhaps. I feel that his use of the word "enhance" rather than scan
>implied that he's of the variety that likes to play with everything he
>scans. Adjusting an image so that the print and the transparency match
>is just something you don't call "enhancing". In fact, you don't call it
>anything, because it's just something one has to do.
Dave, why don't you ask him what his use of the word "enhance" is, in-
stead of passing judgement on him??? I know why you do it. It is because
you are insecure. Just because you can get a decent shot out of shooting
a case of film does not make you a hotshot photographer that must belittle
everyone who does not do things your way...
>>I adjust the tonal scale, do whatever cropping is necessary, spot, size,
>>sometimes remove elements that were unavoidable, straighten, etc. If I
>>have a negative with problems, I use the tools to minimize the problems
>>if the negative was desirable enough. I'm always happiest when I have
>>little work to do and strive for the best negative I can, but even when
>>I was doing my printing in the wet lab, I did the same things.
> Spotting and cropping is obviously not an issue here, as that has to
>be done whatever process you adopt - wet or digital. However, adjusting
>the tonal scale is something I would rather do during development. I've
>built up an arsenal of developers that can make the most of a negative -
>from Ansel Adams' D23 2 bath dev, to pure lith devs.
So, you can't take a decent photograph and have to "enhance" your images
in the dark room... Where do you get off complaining about people
enhancing their images in the computer???
All have a
>differing effect upon tonal range, and all better than anything you can
>hope to do digitally.
That is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion... But that does not
give you the right to attack someone with a different opinion.
>The problem with adjusting the tonality of an image
>digitally, is that you're not doing really. You can increase or decrease
>contrast, or play with the curves to simulate the changes in tonality you
>get with various films and developers, but the results always seem false.
Maybe for you because you are an idiot and don't know how to do it... But
there are plenty of others who can adjust the tonality correctly.
>This may not be a problem when viewed on a screen, as no monitor can
>simulate a fine print, either silver, or a good digital print, but when
>it IS printed, it will not appear as it should. At least to my eyes.
Get some glasses. Get a brain. Get some class and then maybe come back...
>Whilst we continue to shoot on film, by far the best way to adjust such
>things as tonality, is by our choice of film and developer. he digital
>option is something that should be considered when all others fail, as it
>just makes sense to use the highest quality method first, and then work
>your way down. It's not a digital/analogue issue, just a matter of using
>the nest methods available to me.
You've laid an egg with your opinions... Maybe that's the "nest" method
available to you???
>>My goal, except on rare occasion, is to present a fine photograph.
>>Sometimes that requires more "preparation" or "enhancement" than others.
>>There are two/three pictures on my website that required rather more
>>preparation than I usually do ... the result was to produce a pleasing
>>photograph which expressed what I wanted it to.
> That's always the goal. However, some people would use this as an
>excuse to be lazy. I know of many who would prefer to shoot, process and
>get the film scanned as fast as possible, simply to get it over with,
>because it's easier to do it on a computer. The fact is though, the best
>results are obtained by not using a computer. No matter how good an
>image looks if it's scanned from a negative, I can always better it with
>an enlarger... always. The literally hand on approach makes it more
>expressive. Very contrasty negatives cause a problem for scanners. With
>a scan, you can only enhance, or attenuate what's present in the image,
>and a very contrasty negative will simply result in highlights that wash
>out, or shadows that block up. Even a very bad neg can still be printed,
>because the information is usually still there to a degree, but once an
>image exceeds the scanners ability, bits of it are missing, forever, and
>no amount of adjustment will bring it back.
You really are an idiot. Junk in, junk out. That's true of either digital
or traditional printing.
> Obviously, not producing such a negative is the answer, for both you
>and I though. I still feel that digital is a last resort. I have the
>capability, and if people insist upon it, I provide it, but the very best
>of results is always obtained by conventional means.... so far.
For you Dave... Because you are a techno weenie... I wonder who ties your
shoes for you...
>Regards,
>David.
gi...@lava.net
>A photographer produces images with a camera, not a
>computer.
A photographer uses whatever tools he has available to produce his vision.
That could be a pinhole camera, a digital camera, in fact a photographer
does not even need a camera. One can produce interesting images just by
exposing paper using shapes of various opacities.
It is an idiot who thinks that the camera is what makes the
photographer... And Dave has all of the qualifications for that
position....
>You make the mistake of thinking that if the original image
>was captured with a camera, especially a film camera, than that makes you
>a photographer because you can make a nice image out of it in PhotoShop.
Read above. A photographer produces images according to his/her plan. The
tools are incidental.
>It doesn't though. Unless you merely spot your images, and then correct
>for differences between the monitor image and the printed one, and no
>more, or perhaps local dodging and burning, then you go beyond
>photography, and into image manipulation proper. This is not an
>anti-digital argument either,as I feel the same way about people who
>heavily manipulate images in a darkroom, creating a whole new image out
>of nothing. They're not photographers, they're printers, and artists
>sure, but their not photographers.
That's pretty funny Dave after your earlier post about all the
manipulation you do in the darkroom...
gi...@lava.net
><gi...@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:381bd473$1$tvab$mr2...@news.lava.net...
>> In <7veh31$3nd$3...@gxsn.com>, on 10/30/99
>> Maybe, Dave, it's because unlike you, they are artistically inclined.
>> Artists will use ANY medium necessary to be more expressive.
> ...but, by you, NOT using digital is regarded as NOT being artistic?
I never said that Dave... Can't you have a disagreement without making
things up???
>Seems like there's a little flaw in your argument somewhere Gino.
That was your argument Dave... I never said that... Maybe you can repost
where I said that art needed digital???
Surely
>if an artist will use ANY means to be more expressive, that means he can
>use film alone too doesn't it?
Yes, now you're getting it. I never said otherwise. It was you who said
that you can ONLY use film to be a photographer. It was YOU with the
narrowminded obtuse argument...
>Oh... I see.... you were talking shit.
>That explains it then.
Back to your old tricks of relying on obscenities, I see. Too bad you're
such a loser...
>> Opening your mouth about things of which you have no knowlege is bad
>> form...
> Yes... I remember why I killfiled you on my last computer now.
>Goodbye Gino.
>David.
He always says that... He can't stand being wrong...
gi...@lava.net
>David started this with some condescending remarks to another
>photographer so he could espouse his own virtues. There are better ways
>of promoting ones views. Stepping on others puts one in the low class
>category IMO.
>Zeuspaul
You have pegged David exactly. He has a long, long reputation of brutally
attacking anyone who does not agree 100% with his version of how things
need to be done... He has expressed in the past that he shoots huge
amounts of film in order to even get an image. He brackets at every
exposure imagin-
able. Then, he somehow thinks that he is the world's greatest
photographer.
Now, he has the nerve to attack someone for "enhancing" their image via
computer. It is obvious that PhotoShop is above the intelligence level of
this moron and he must defend his practices with all he has...
It's too bad really. Photography is supposed to be enjoyable...
gi...@lava.net
> Oh dear... If I remember correctly Gino, the last time YOU started
>throwing your weight around on here, you were practically lynched by the
>mob.
>It;s not a popularity contest you immature little man. It's a discussion
>forum.
And your idea of a discussion is call people who use PhotoShop names and
decide that they have no skills as a photographer???
BTW Dave, TWO messages ago you said you kill-filed me... What's the matter
don't you have enough technical skills to actually do so??? Or do you feel
the need to prove that you really are just another liar lurking on
Usenet???
>> You are a moron Dave. You don't have a clue about digital imaging anyone
>> can see by these last statements.
> Yes, of course Gino.... ;-)
>> Portrait customers do want to look as perfect as possible. It's their
>> money and they deserve to get what they are paying for.
> I do believe I said that myself.
>> I work with a lot of performers and sometimes they like concepts like over
>> saturated colors. Sometimes they like blends, and warps and blurs.
> So? What the f**k are you talking about? So what if they like you
>to rub baby oil all over them? Is that photography? You're a PhotoShop
>artist in that case, not a Photographer.
Is that what you do??? Rub baby oil on your customers??? No thank you, I
have my own techniques for my customers. I give them what they pay me to
do...
>> Pretty funny Dave. You know all those people??? Most of them make more
>> money than you ever will...
> Actually Gino, I know many Apple Mac operators, and none of them make
>above £18,000 per year. It's actually a crap job Gino. Every once in a
>while someone will convince someone else that they're a PhotoShop
>"artist", but it's a pretty thin line to tread. Using Photoshop is easy,
>that's the problem. Anyone can do it.
You can't... That's why you hate it so much...
>> You do... That's why you respond to me...
> I'm responding to your current posts because I've seen them. I am
>however, going to kill-file you after this exchange, just like I had you
>kill-filed on my last computer. You slipped through the net by accident,
>not design. I care nothing for your opinions. You're not capable of
>having a civil debate Gino, you start shouting, and being insulting and
>behaving like a little boy. As always, I seem to annoy you - jealousy is
>terrible Gino, and you should try to control it a little better. It's
>bad for you.
Dave, you seem to forget that it was YOU who started calling people names.
And it was YOU who resorted to obscenities...
>> That's because you are a horse' ass, Dave.
> Really? Nothing to do with the fact that I'm half-way around the
>world, and you have not the faintest idea who I am? Oh.. OK then.
>David.
You'd be surprised what I know about you... And it's not very nice....
gi...@lava.net
>David.
Notice that this is the second time he said I was in his kill-file...
Let's go for number three...
Only me...
<wcm...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:381CCC...@attglobal.net...
> Only me... wrote:
> Sure you are. You should have seen all those moon and mars pictures
> before they were sharpened with digital filters. By giving more emphasis
> to the high spatial frequencies ( or attenuating the low frequencies,
> whatever ), you sharpen the image. In the process, you probably end up
> losing low frequency stuff that was in the original scene, so the image
> is degraded in that sense; But you do sharpen it.
You're not sharpening it in the real sense. You can't create what's not
there. You can make it apparently sharper, but at a cost to something else
somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. By far the best way of
getting sharp pictures, is by taking sharp pictures.
David.
Only me...
> But imagine if I were to start attacking, say, the production
> of photographs of people's warts. "That's not photograpy".
> "It's ugly and misses the human spirit", and so on.
I've never once criticised anyone's choice of subject matter in this
thread Mr Fieldman. Not once. It's a discussion on whether digital methods
are actually better, or whether their mostly used for the sake of it. I
would never criticise anyone's choice of subject matter. It's not my place
to do that. Only the artist can justify his use of subject.
> Someone might point out to me that I could simply
> decline to purchase such photographs. I would, and
> I know a lot of other people who would join me in
> such a "boycott'.
>
> Now feel free to use your right of expression to find
> those who would join you in boycotting digitally
> enhanced photographs.
What are you going on about? I wish to boycott nothing. I think you've
got several wires crossed somewhere along the way.
David.
Only me...
James W.(Jim) Simmons <jw...@mis.net> wrote in message
news:7vi0bg$8rh$1...@nd.eastky.net...
>
> Just a comment. Remember all the teachings on darkroom techniques, burning
> in, ect., ect, just to make up for poor exposure. Now many use digital
> techniques to do the same thing. All of this would not be needed if the
> picture was taken correctly to begain with.
Exactly. I'm not criticising digital methods, but rather the way
digital manipulation seems to have legitimised poor photography. It's now
acceptable to "tidy" things up on eth computer. It's sloppy workmanship.
Lest we forget... The taking of the image is, and always will be the
of paramount importance to photographers. As soon as that becomes a
secondary process, you're no longer a photographer. You may be some other
kind of artist, but you're not a photographer.
David.
John Stewart
digital cameras, and would manipulate my images in a darkroom if I had the
room and time. I seldom ever take a shot that perfectly fits the tonal
range of both the film and paper.
The idea of taking only what the camera records is one way of doing
photography. In Russia, for example, people have seen more than 50 years of
retouched photos done by the state. There was an artistic movement in the
early 90's that purposefully added flaws to images and left them in, to
contrast the state-retouched "too perfect" images!
OTOH, one of the reasons that photos retouched on computers are often
nailed, is that (like a new toy) the users go overboard and make images that
are so obviously "computer made" they offend the tradtional crowd.
I know the feeling. I felt the same way when I saw the "flyover scene" of
the Titanic in the movie. It could never have be shot using a helicopter
and was simply something that the human eye would never experience in real
life.
Eventually, the fever for outlandish computer manupulation will settle down,
just like the craze for smearing Polaroid images with a coin.
But I see not difference in using a PC to adjust the tonal range versus
polycontrast paper. If someone insists on the Zen of shooting and accepting
the outcome as-is, that's up to them.
John Stewart
author of
"How To Buy Your First Digital Camera!"
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Why?
Because he wants to. They are his images, not yours.
>Can you no longer take good photographs?
I can. I imagine he can, too. He just prefers a different way to do it.
>Why do people just automatically shove all their images through PhotoShop?
I don' even have a scanner, let along photoslop. (named that for their
programming style not what one uses it for)
I keep trying to get a good MF scanner, but I keep finding out that
it won't have enough OD range to do my K25 stuff or my Velvia
stuff. So I don't have one yet.
>Is the sky never
>blue enough for you, or the grass green?
Right now the sky is white and the grass is brown? Are you making some
assumptions, Dave?
>Digital just for the sake of it is poor practice.
Of course, the fellow you're slamming didn't suggest "digital just for
the sake of it", did he? You're just ranting.
>Unless you always do some sort of montage work, or need to
>retouch every image you take, why not just print it straight.
Why print it straight if cooked looks better?
>Why do you feel a need to "enhance" them?
Well, right now, the sky is white and the grass is brown.
Next question, please.
>Do you feel a need to "enhance" your eyes
>when you look out over a wonderful landscape?
Yes, I use binoculars, I use my 500MM (35) lens, I use my 165 (MF) lens,
and I wear glasses all the time. If eyeglasses aren't "enhancement" of
everything I see, then nothing is.
You'd want us all to remove our glasses? You think that viewing scenery
is limited to people with 20/20 vision?
> I feel sorry for you.
At the minute I feel sorry for you. So angry, so unhappy, so
dogmatic...
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>trying to cram the limitless amount of colours into a print that uses four
>colours (as almost all offset-litho magazine printing does) is unavoidable.
Only two points.
1) There are not a 'limitless' number of colours visible to the human
eye.
2) There are not a limitless number of either colours or shades available
to either film or digital.
So what has "limitless amount of colours", pray tell?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
It's neither tenuous nor a mistake.
It is exactly analagous. Adams previsualised a lot. Someone who
has a lot of digital experience does EXACTLY THE SAME THING, only
they use a computer instead of silver nitrate.
What's the point, David? They are the SAME THING!
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Michael Tremblay <Mi...@rainmakr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:UxYKeCA9...@rainmakr.demon.co.uk...
>> Digital enhancement moves the picture outside of the realm of
>> photography and into something else, since we have dumped the
>> original image and are now manipulating the result.
Quite so?
> At least there's at least ONE person out there who's capable of seeing
>my point without being SCARED of saying anything anti-digital, for fear of
>being labelled a dinosaur, or unfashionable or something.
I see nothing anti-digital in that quote.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
I know very little about Gino, other than that he has
neatly dissected your propaganda and shredded your
little rant about digital quite nicely.
I guess you just can't deal with the competition.
Oh, and btw, I don't own a scanner (none work well enough for
my satisfaction, and digital printing sux), and I shoot lots
of stuff like Techpan in 6x7. So be careful leaping to them
there conclusions, fella...
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>an artist will use ANY means to be more expressive, that means he can use
>explains it then.
Classic fallacy of the excluded middle, via some illogical subornation
and this and that.
Dave, he didn't say that one could NOT only use film. YOU said he did.
I see you've fallen into pure propaganda writing now.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>discussion.
Then, previsualizing what one will do in the digital darkroom
and then doing it is NOT valid? Is doing that while one
shoots silver and then does it in wetwork valid, then?
>There is a real difference between the original image as photography and
>the use of digital enhancement to make a new image. It is a different
>art form any way you look at it.
I think everyone agrees on this point.
>Another of David's concerns that has bothered me for the last several
>years is the use of re imaging stuff for the evening news and newspaper
>photos.
Oh, I think we're agreeing. Thing is, that's not what Dave was
railling about in this thread.
>We have all lost a great sense of reality when looking at a
>photographic image now that there is no way to tell whether or not we
>are seeing what is or was really there when the picture was purportedly
>taken.
Hmm. So photography is purely a means of documentation, then?
>Perhaps the basic point is that when one tends to run most of their
>stuff through photoshop for "enhancements" they should be up front with
>people that they actually created the effect with the computer instead
>of through the lens.
Again, agreed, but that's not implied in Dave's rant, nor does it
appear the Gino is disagreeing, at least from what I've read.
>It is a little like serving a great dish out of the can and telling
>people that it was prepared by slaving over a stove isn't it?
No, it's not, if one is upfront about how one made the shot.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
James W.(Jim) Simmons <jw...@mis.net> wrote:
>Just a comment. Remember all the teachings on darkroom techniques, burning
>in, ect., ect, just to make up for poor exposure.
Or "interesting" lighting.
>Now many use digital
>techniques to do the same thing.
Hard to say.
>All of this would not be needed if the
>picture was taken correctly to begain with.
And, here we have the beginnings of propaganda, brought about by
the idea that it is always POSSIBLE to get both highlights and
lowlights into a nice zone.
Sometimes it is very difficult to control mother nature, after all.
If you have a big enough flash to fill-flash Storm King, well
more power to you. LOTS more power. :_)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>In <7vh8da$686$8...@gxsn.com>, on 10/31/99
> at 11:13 AM, "Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> said:
>><gi...@lava.net> wrote in message
>>news:381bd473$1$tvab$mr2...@news.lava.net...
>>> In <7veh31$3nd$3...@gxsn.com>, on 10/30/99
>>> Maybe, Dave, it's because unlike you, they are artistically inclined.
>>> Artists will use ANY medium necessary to be more expressive.
>> ...but, by you, NOT using digital is regarded as NOT being artistic?
>I never said that Dave... Can't you have a disagreement without making
>things up???
It was his exercise of the "fallacy of the excluded middle".
In language there are two kinds of negation. One says
"the opposite of this is true". This kind of negation is
NOT very common. What is understood in normal discourse is
normally "Your statement is false".
This does not imply "the converse of your statement is true",
nor anything else.
In the simplest form, it's the "with me or against me" argument.
In more complicated forms, false subornation is also added,
which leads to:
If you say that digital is art, then one must have digital to
be artistic.
That's what Dave did to you.
That kind of manouver is common to propagandists and
politicians, mostly.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
You can, to some extent, create a sharper image. IF the
exposure is such that lens MTF or something of the sort
has softened the image. Movement blur is something else,
there is a process called auto-deconvolution, but it's
well, mathematically annoying to say the best, I think.
>You can't create what's not
>there.
You can, however, change the frequency response of what IS there.
>You can make it apparently sharper, but at a cost to something else
>somewhere.
Not NECESSARILY, but in fact the mathematics do imply that if you
"sharpen" an image by filtering, you will have a whole variety of
effects that can be good or bad, depending.
>There's no such thing as a free lunch. By far the best way of
>getting sharp pictures, is by taking sharp pictures.
Agreed. One can, however, to some extent compensate for
lens MTF and other effects.
C. J. Morgan
: Would it be reasonable to say that, in either chemical or digital
: photography, the dodging, burning, etc. is used to make up for lack of tonal
: gradiation inherent in the materials used?
Regardless of whether I've accomplished the objective via Photoshop or
via darkroom work, my own use of dodging and burning has simply been to
communicate with as much clarity, directness and impact as possilbe -- to
work as creatively as possible within the technical limits of my
photographic medium for the purpose of communicating as best I can.
******************
: If we had some media that matched the human eye, much of this would not be
: necessary.
John
If my objective was to match the human eye, or to mimic what it sees, then I
would probably not photograph. I find these two modes of seeing very
different. And when I photograph, it is often less about what "I" alone see,
but a mixture of my own perception combined with what I imagine my tools
and material me the ability to communicate.
C. J. Morgan
: >A photographer produces images with a camera, not a computer.
This seems to be a very limited view.
**************
gi...@lava.net wrote:
: A photographer uses whatever tools he has available to produce his vision.
: That could be a pinhole camera, a digital camera, in fact a photographer
: does not even need a camera. One can produce interesting images just by
: exposing paper using shapes of various opacities.
This seems a more reasonable view.
*************
Dave apparently wrote:
: >It doesn't though. Unless you merely spot your images, and then correct
: >for differences between the monitor image and the printed one, and no
: >more, or perhaps local dodging and burning, then you go beyond
: >photography, and into image manipulation proper. This is not an
: >anti-digital argument either,as I feel the same way about people who
: >heavily manipulate images in a darkroom, creating a whole new image out
: >of nothing. They're not photographers, they're printers, and artists
: >sure, but their not photographers.
A photographer is a writer with light. To say one is not simply because
they do darkroom work or use digital means to enhance the communication
effectiveness of their images again seem to me like a very limited view.
Only me...
C. J. Morgan <ch...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:FKJ1oD.4w...@torfree.net...
> Regardless of whether I've accomplished the objective via Photoshop or
> via darkroom work, my own use of dodging and burning has simply been to
> communicate with as much clarity, directness and impact as possilbe -- to
> work as creatively as possible within the technical limits of my
> photographic medium for the purpose of communicating as best I can.
Of course, and that's commendable. However, it seems to me, that as
digital technology increases in popularity, people are taking less care at
the taking stage, and relying more and more upon digital manipulation to
improve the image. In this case, they are becoming less and less of a
photographer, and more and more of a Photoshop operator.
David.
Only me...
John Stewart <2muchs...@anywhere.org> wrote in message
news:Ip7T3.40$24....@news7.onvoy.net...
> Would it be reasonable to say that, in either chemical or digital
> photography, the dodging, burning, etc. is used to make up for lack of
tonal
> gradiation inherent in the materials used? Most of the Zone System is
> really about (a) absolute standardization of the process for repeatable
> results, and (b) matching the range of tones that the film and paper can
> record to the image via exposure, processing and dodging, etc.
Correct. However, the biggest advantage to the zone system, is that if
you implement it correctly, you will have a negative that is easy to print,
and requires the minimal of printing. The zone system is about AVOIDING
having to manipulate the image at printing. However, most people who use
digital printing these days, almost relish the though of manipulating the
image. They LIKE manipulating the image, and this results in things
getting manipulated whether they need it or not. What I don't understand,
is why people can't calibrate their printers, and scanners so as to make
digital manipulation something that you keep to a minimum? If a digitally
manipulated image is what you wish to create, then fine, but people end
up"tweaking" everything. Why? No one felt a need to tweak the colours of
their slides 15 years ago, but now it seems impossible to resist the urge to
adjust something, somewhere. I'm quite sure a lot of this is purely for the
sake of it, rather than through need. I went to great lengths to ensure
that my scanning and printing is pretty much calibrated correctly, and when
I scan a slide, and then print it, it looks, to all pretence and purposes,
exactly like the original. Isn't that the objective? Creating digital art
is something else entirely - I'm not referring to that, but why, after going
to such lengths to get the colours just so, should I then "tweak" the sky a
little, or the grass, or perhaps sharpen it a bit here and there? It's not
necessary.
>
> Digital is even more restrictive with about 256 shades to each primary
> color.
You assume I'm using 24 bit colour. I'm not, I'm using 32 bit colour.
David.
Only me...
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:FKJ15...@research.att.com...
> In article <7vh8d7$686$6...@gxsn.com>,
>
> I know very little about Gino, other than that he has
> neatly dissected your propaganda and shredded your
> little rant about digital quite nicely.
Give him time.
Only me...
> It's neither tenuous nor a mistake.
>
> It is exactly analagous. Adams previsualised a lot. Someone who
> has a lot of digital experience does EXACTLY THE SAME THING, only
> they use a computer instead of silver nitrate.
That's not my experience of most people who rely heavily upon digital
technology at all. In fact, most I've met don't pre-visualise anything.
They
rely upon the knowledge that it can probably be "fixed" in Photoshop. I'm
not saying you fit this category, as you clearly do not if your comments are
anything to go by. However, a lot do, and this is why I find the Adams
analogy totally absurd. The whole point of Adams' zone system was to keep
printing to a minimum - to create the perfect negative. What the majority
of digital manipulation seems to be about is creating something from
nothing. I know of few digital photographers who exercise the same care at
eth taking stage as Adams did... in fact I know of few photographers who do
that period. However, the attitude of "I can sort that out later" is
becoming more prevalent as digital techniques become more commonplace.
David.
Only me...
Zeuspaul <jo...@zeuspaul.com> wrote in message
news:381CA4AF...@zeuspaul.com...
> >David is the one making the valid points in this discussion.
>
How do you define a purist, and why am I a purist? I own thousands of
pounds worth of digital imaging equipment; I supply the needs of my clients
whether they be analogue or digital; I am highly conversant in all aspects
of digital imaging, whether it be manipulating an image in PS, using the
latest scanning backs on my 5x4 view cameras for still life work, or even
computer modelling and 3D rendering to use as montage with "real" images.
How am I a purist? I am willing, ready, and very able to use any, and all
of today's digital technologies....
But....
I'm not getting carried away with it. I'm a photographer first and
foremost. The fact that my images require the very minimum of post
production manipulation is because I'm not "thinking" digital when I'm
exposing the "film". That's the difference here: It's all the same thing
to me. Digital, film.... It's just light sensitive media, and I'm
exposing it to light. What comes after that is irrelevant. If I have a
concept that requires digital manipulation from the outset, then I'll be
thinking about it from the outset, but to be thinking about what you're
going to do to it in Photoshop all the time, with all your images, whilst
your using your camera means that your more of a Photoshop artist than you
are a photographer. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's get it
straight here. Photographers take photographs, and when the majority of
your time starts to be spent in front of a computer instead of behind a
camera,
isn't it time you realised that you're becoming something other than a
photographer? Why is that bad? It seems to me that you all want to have
your cake and eat it. You like calling yourselves photographers even though
you'll spend more time in front of your Mac or PC than you do behind a
camera. If non of this applies to you, then just move on to the nest post,
but if it does, then you need to ask yourself whether you're having an ID
crisis or not. Most are. You can't just go "snap" take a shot, spend days
in front of a PC creating a great image and still call yourself a
photographer. You're a Photoshop operator/artist.
>and that
> is debatable. Why is someone who alters colors with one's choice of
> film pure while someone who alters colors in an image editor not even
> considered a photographer. A bit radical in my opinion. Some
> photographs never touch film. Is a digital camera not a camera? Does
> one have to have interchangeable CCDs if one wants to be considered a
> photographer?
It's all down to what I've written above. What do you spend most time
doing? If it;s taking images with your camera, then you're a photographer.
If you spend most time in front of a computer manipulating that image in
Photoshop, then you're not - you're a Photoshop artist.
Why are you a photographer is most of your time is devoted to Photoshop?
Most painters photograph a scene first, then work from that. Does it make
them a photographer? No... they're still painters.
David.
Only me...
> Then, previsualizing what one will do in the digital darkroom
> and then doing it is NOT valid?
I never said it's not valid, but if the majority of your time and effort
is devoted to the digital manipulation stage then you need to ask yourself
whether you're a photographer, or some other kind of artist. Although it
takes but what... 1/25th to expose the film, most photographers will
devote a LOT more time to the exposure than that. I start with an idea in a
sketchbook, work out the technicalities, decide upon equipment, choose film
and development sympathetic to my needs. I'll probably travel, spend time
setting up a shot, waiting.... an short, even if it takes an hour to make
a single print, or even 2, by far the most effort was expended (mental and
physical) upon the exposure. Digital/Analogue aside for a moment, just to
keep this unbiased - if I spent more time printing the shots than I did
taking them, I'd be inclined to call myself a printer rather than a
photographer. Likewise, if most of your time is spent staring at a monitor
to produce your art, are you not something other than a photographer?
David.
Only me...
> Classic fallacy of the excluded middle, via some illogical subornation
> and this and that.
>
> Dave, he didn't say that one could NOT only use film. YOU said he did.
No, but it's rather hypocritical to defend his argument by saying that
the artist can use ANY means available to him.. blah, blah.... when all
that achieves is to legitimise everyone's methods, and gives them equal
standing within the debate. Which is not a bad thing, just a bit of a
stupid thing to say when you're trying to advocate one method of photography
over another, don't you think?
>
> I see you've fallen into pure propaganda writing now.
I never write propaganda - just my opinions. Propaganda is something
else entirely.
David.
Only me...
> In article <7veh2v$3nd$2...@gxsn.com>,
> >trying to cram the limitless amount of colours into a print that uses
four
> >colours (as almost all offset-litho magazine printing does) is
unavoidable.
>
> Only two points.
>
> 1) There are not a 'limitless' number of colours visible to the human
> eye.
> 2) There are not a limitless number of either colours or shades available
> to either film or digital.
>
> So what has "limitless amount of colours", pray tell?
Who said I was disagreeing with you? You're actually making my point
for me.
Only me...
> >> Digital enhancement moves the picture outside of the realm of
> >> photography and into something else, since we have dumped the
> >> original image and are now manipulating the result.
>
> Quite so?
>
> > At least there's at least ONE person out there who's capable of
seeing
> >my point without being SCARED of saying anything anti-digital, for fear
of
> >being labelled a dinosaur, or unfashionable or something.
>
> I see nothing anti-digital in that quote.
Exactly!! That's my point! However, by the reactions you get on here
by having anything negative to say about digital techniques, you would think
there was.
David.
Only me...
> >There's no such thing as a free lunch. By far the best way of
> >getting sharp pictures, is by taking sharp pictures.
>
> Agreed. One can, however, to some extent compensate for
> lens MTF and other effects.
To some extent is an apt way of putting it. It's a fix, a bodge...
it's better to take better photos to start with though. It is simply
impossible to argue the logic of this. So, having established that, who
cares? Why not just get the damned thing in focus to start with, an you'll
never have to bother thinking about it, agreed?
David.
chmc
"Only me..." wrote:
> jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> message news:FKJ1D...@research.att.com...
>
> > Then, previsualizing what one will do in the digital darkroom
> > and then doing it is NOT valid?
>
> I never said it's not valid, but if the majority of your time and effort
> is devoted to the digital manipulation stage then you need to ask yourself
> whether you're a photographer, or some other kind of artist.
Why should you bother asking yourself that question? Why do you even need a
title at all.
You may not have said that digital manipulation wasn't "valid," but you did
deride people who used it, and ended by saying that you "felt sorry"for a person
that used photoshop.
Anders Svensson
> And, here we have the beginnings of propaganda, brought about by
> the idea that it is always POSSIBLE to get both highlights and
> lowlights into a nice zone.
I think that one of the advantages with digital imageing is that such stunts can
be done a little easier. Compressing a very dynamic picture in this way would seem
much easier by doing it in a digital form than in analog.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
And your point was? I must say that it was remarkably unclear.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>> and then doing it is NOT valid?
> I never said it's not valid, but if the majority of your time and effort
>is devoted to the digital manipulation stage then you need to ask yourself
>whether you're a photographer, or some other kind of artist.
If you capture things through a lens to begin with, or even through
a pinhole, I think you're a photographer. I don't care if you use
a painted-on gel emulsion on a glass plate, a sensitized bit of
tin, C41 B&W (although I admit to twitching at the last), or even
a 6000x7000 scan of a Techpan negative.
>Although it
>takes but what... 1/25th to expose the film, most photographers will
>devote a LOT more time to the exposure than that.
Indeed. So when somebody looks at the dark water with really nice, but
very dark, reflections, and thinks "I'll bring that up a bit
digitally" (better have a 16 bit drum scanner, too), how is this different
than thinking "I'll dodge about 90% and see what comes of it?
A camera is a tool. A computer is a tool. Either can be used. Either
can be misused.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>> Dave, he didn't say that one could NOT only use film. YOU said he did.
> No, but it's rather hypocritical to defend his argument by saying that
>the artist can use ANY means available to him.. blah, blah.... when all
>that achieves is to legitimise everyone's methods, and gives them equal
>standing within the debate.
No, any method that does what the art requires is fine. That doesn't
justify ANY method, now, at all.
For instance, it excludes methods that don't work, look ugly,
etc.
Again, it's the same exclusion argument.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>it's better to take better photos to start with though.
It's always better to have more information to start with,
indeed.
>It is simply
>impossible to argue the logic of this.
Well, "except when getting a really good image would mean that you
got none instead" is pretty convincing, eh?
>So, having established that, who
>cares? Why not just get the damned thing in focus to start with, an you'll
>never have to bother thinking about it, agreed?
Because sometimes s**t happens.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>technology at all. In fact, most I've met don't pre-visualise anything.
We know different people, then.
>They
>rely upon the knowledge that it can probably be "fixed" in Photoshop.
Um, only if the information is present to start with.
>The whole point of Adams' zone system was to keep
>printing to a minimum - to create the perfect negative.
Well, <chuckle> that's certainly part of it.
>What the majority
>of digital manipulation seems to be about is creating something from
>nothing.
You have to have the information SOMEHOW.
>I know of few digital photographers who exercise the same care at
>eth taking stage as Adams did... in fact I know of few photographers who do
>that period. However, the attitude of "I can sort that out later" is
>becoming more prevalent as digital techniques become more commonplace.
Very few of us are Ansel Adams, I will agree.
C. J. Morgan
> Just a comment. Remember all the teachings on darkroom techniques, burning
> in, ect., ect, just to make up for poor exposure.
No, I don't remember such teachings. What I remember was more along the
lines of the negative being the score and the print being the
performance.
*************
> Now many use digital techniques to do the same thing. All of this
> would not be needed if the picture was taken correctly to begain with.
Darkroom work or digital techniquest wouldn't be needed if the picture was
taken correctly to begin with? Pish-posh. Such logic makes as much sense
as saying a well written score doesn't require an equally good performance.
To those of you who make such arguments, you're just as likely to withhold
the title of "photographer" simply because a person does his or her own
darkroom work -- which itself is literally writing with light.
The point being, that the very best of photographers -- in the finest
sense of the word -- perform their own scores, as it were; a denouncing of
a person as a "non-photographer" simply because he or she uses either a
darkroom or something like digital Photoshop notwithstanding.
gi...@lava.net
at 01:03 PM, "Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> said:
>Earl Fieldman <efie...@anywehere.net> wrote in message
>news:OKcc$R8I$GA.245@cpmsnbbsa02...
>> But imagine if I were to start attacking, say, the production
>> of photographs of people's warts. "That's not photograpy".
>> "It's ugly and misses the human spirit", and so on.
> I've never once criticised anyone's choice of subject matter in this
>thread Mr Fieldman. Not once. It's a discussion on whether digital
>methods are actually better, or whether their mostly used for the sake of
>it. I would never criticise anyone's choice of subject matter. It's not
>my place to do that. Only the artist can justify his use of subject.
And only the artist can justify his use of tools to portray the subject.
Hence you have beaten yourself in your own "argument"... You should be
feeling shameful and embarassed.
>> Someone might point out to me that I could simply
>> decline to purchase such photographs. I would, and
>> I know a lot of other people who would join me in
>> such a "boycott'.
>>
>> Now feel free to use your right of expression to find
>> those who would join you in boycotting digitally
>> enhanced photographs.
> What are you going on about? I wish to boycott nothing. I think
>you've got several wires crossed somewhere along the way.
>David.
No, David. Perhaps you did not receive a proper education where you have
learned better communication skills... Education could nothing for your
personality, however sat that is...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
gi...@lava.net
What evil lurks in the hearts of men???
The SHADOW knows...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zeuspaul
gentleman merely indicated that he passes all of his images through
Photoshop. You accused him of not being a photographer..not knowing how
to take pictures.
Your current position seems to be one of balance and degree..ie how much
TIME is spent in Photshop is now a determining factor.
I, like the gentleman that you pounced on..pass all my keeper images
through an image editor. I do not have a darkroom..I do not have a
photo printer..and I can not afford a working relationship with a
professional lab. My preference is to view images on a monitor..better
than paper IMHO.
The amount of time I spend in PhotoImpact is determined in large part on
how much the lab botched the negatives and the negative scans. I can
spend 30 minutes just removing scratches and spots.
I shoot what I believe to be neutral color biased film (ektapress pj100
and pj400). I do this as I can adjust the tones in PhotoImpact and I
do...am I still a photographer to this point? For a lot of images this
is as far as I go.
Some images are further *enhanced* or in my opinion digitally altered. I
add things that were not there or remove things I do not like..trash for
example. Perhaps I add a flock of birds. I would not characterize
these images as photographs nor the work photography. These are
digitally altered and I do it because I want to and because the
technology exists. I never tried to alter my old slides because I did
not have the tools to do so...not because I thought the slides were
stand alone works of art..not my slides<g>
I do not have the ability to create something from nothing so I do not
consider this digital art. I believe it is better characterized as
digitally altered photographs.
Now back to the beginning of this discussion...remember? the one you
chose as a vehicle to spark a discussion..'if everything goes through an
image editor then you do not know how to take photographs comment..
I, like the original gentleman have to consider the digital aspect of
medium format. If I can not digitize the film I can not use it. ALL of
my keeper images go through an image editor...the photographs as well as
the digitally altered ones.
For $28US I can get 36 digitized photographs..film + developing + hi res
(2000x3000) scans on CDR...no prints for me..maybe later.
Nothing at the local pro lab comes close in medium format. It is
somewhere around $20 per image! About twenty times the cost of 35mm.
SO..the only way I can consider medium format is to do my own
scanning..and the medium format scanning options are not that
good....but I sure want to go medium format...Fugi 690 and maybe an
Epson 1200 with transparency adaptor..have to see some sample scans
first. Maybe in a couple of years an AGFA 2500 dpi if the price is
right.
Zeuspaul
gi...@lava.net
><wcm...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:381CCC...@attglobal.net... > Only me... wrote:
>> Sure you are. You should have seen all those moon and mars pictures
>> before they were sharpened with digital filters. By giving more emphasis
>> to the high spatial frequencies ( or attenuating the low frequencies,
>> whatever ), you sharpen the image. In the process, you probably end up
>> losing low frequency stuff that was in the original scene, so the image
>> is degraded in that sense; But you do sharpen it.
> You're not sharpening it in the real sense.
Dave, come back!!! Stop dwelling in the Twighlight Zone. Reality is
reality. Sharpening is sharpening. There is no unreal sense to that act...
You can't create what's
>not there. You can make it apparently sharper, but at a cost to
>something else somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. By far
>the best way of getting sharp pictures, is by taking sharp pictures.
Even with traditional photography there's a give and take to getting
sharpness. Smaller apertures require longer exposure times. Shooting
through haze or mist??? I don't care what filter/lens combo you use, you
will still loose sharpness. Digital enhancement wins hands down in such a
situation...
>David.
The more you respond to this thread the more uninformed you appear... Did
you subscription to Shutterbug run out???