Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,117   Posts: 1,613,215   Online: 836
      
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 173

Thread: F#@%ing Fakes

  1. #21
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,646
    Images
    4
    If this upsets you, wait until you see "content aware" in CS5.
    juan

  2. #22
    Hexavalent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    554
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    That may mean, your really worked hard to do what can be done in PS or it can mean, that is way better than the PS work. Which do you think?
    A bit of both no doubt
    - Ian

  3. #23
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,296
    Images
    6
    Ink jet cyanotype is like an artificial flavor. It could give you an idea of what it's like, but it isn't the real thing.

  4. #24
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,296
    Images
    6
    True. The sad thing is that some mistake watching it as the real thing. Same as the ink jet cyanotype.

  5. #25
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,296
    Images
    6
    It reminds me of those Photoshop filters that imitate the Polaroid type 55 negative edges. I see those filters used on color images.

  6. #26
    patrickjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    743
    Those that can, do. Those that can't, fake.

    I just ignore these things with a chuckle. This type of thing is occurring throughout society; it is not just photography. There is a great dumbing down of humanity on account of our reliance on technology's assistance. In photography, antique processes are being faked digitally with the goal of reproducing the look of the original, but it never quite works out that way. Many of these people have never even seen an original print of the process they are trying to fake.

  7. #27
    bsdunek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,195
    Images
    211
    Good discussion. I guess I just chalk it up to complete ignorance of what they are doing or looking at. At our art show last weekend I had at least four people ask me what kind of computer I use, and several more wanted to know what kind of camera I used. If it wasn't a Nikon or Canon, they didn't understand. If I told them no computer was used, they were mystified. And if I told them no camera was used (Lumen prints), it went right over their head.
    I do wish those interested in photography today would learn the history, no matter what process they end up using.
    Bruce

    Moma don't take my Kodachrome away!
    Oops, Kodak just did!
    For all practical purposes, they've taken Kodak away.


    BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,555
    Like an artificial flavor... It could give you an idea of what it's like,
    but it isn't the real thing.

    Like watching sex but not having it!


    Sounds almost like the difference between drawing a scene...
    and photographing it!

    Curious thing though about filmmaking...
    when you make a movie... you may pretend to kill someone or even die...
    but when you kiss, there's no foolin' around!
    It is the real thing!

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,075
    There are many ways to lie, to misrepresent. Human beings have been doing it for centuries without pause. What amazes me is that anyone, these days, would expect complete honesty from another human being. There is nothing wrong with a "digital cyanotype" being presented as such. In time even the "digital" part will be dropped and the qualifier will be "silver-based" or somesuch, just as "album" once meant pressed vinyl, or a digitized disc, and now means a bunch of songs downloaded from the internet.
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    As for Digital fakery, I use it sometimes because my eye sucks and I need to look at what a subject may look like in another medium. when I see something I want to really do a nice photo set of I will shoot it digital then take the photos home and work them to death digitally until I know what shots I want to take, what filters want to use, and what film might work best. I have said this before, I believe that Digital is by far the fastest way to learn how to use a camera or produce a desired photo, but film is the way to get that photo. Still, I can shoot one hundred digital frames, and spend a few hours playing with them only to find out that I need to shoot a second roll of film because film is not digital and acts different.

    I would never try to pass off a digital fake as anything other that a digital photo edited in whatever software, that is just wrong.
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin