Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,348   Online: 787
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    696
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    Beautiful work on a very nice website.
    Thanks Aggie.
    Graeme Hird
    www.scenebyhird.com

    Failure is NOT an option! It comes bundled with your software ....

  2. #22
    papagene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Western Mass., USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,190
    Images
    116
    Nice work Graeme, thanks for the link.
    gene
    gene LaFord


    Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    "I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    Graem said "Colour work is so much more difficult to do well via analogue means"

    This is not true at all. I have always found color to be a much less demanding mistress than B/W. The best images I have shot and had printed (I am a bit color blind so printing my own is out of the question) have been color. True it takes a different set of thinking and the commercial printing of them have gone almost all digital, but it is still possible to get wet prints at places if you want them. They are more expensive though. Cole Weston shot color with no or few filters and worked his magic in a wet darkroom.

    Now if you want to super impose a sky onto somthing it is easier if you do it digitally than stacking two trannies and masking. If a sky is out of your exposure range use split density filters not photoshop. Glen Rowell until his death shot film, though towards the end his out put was digital, he believed in in-camera manipulations. Many times he shot a scene with 5 stops of SPlit density filters stacked onto his lens. IMO digital is not necessary it is just easier.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  4. #24
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean
    was browsing photosig the other day and found some of the images very bizarre. It's looking more and more popular to have wild colors and many objects added to the images. I saw a scene of a field and lake, and someone then added a hotair ballon, then added a fake reflection of the ballon in the lake. It really looked terrible, and many of the comments are like "great photograph!! i love what you did with making the reflection!". Had they said "great digital illustration!" I would have been happy, but "great photograph" on something that has been tweaked beyond recognition of the original, yeah, pitchfork to the face about sums it up, hehe

    sean I just went over to photosig for the first time because of your post. just because curiosity drives me sometimes.

    wow.
    those images (notice I dont use the word photographs) are astoundingly atrocious.

  5. #25
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,082
    Images
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
    I shoot colour almost exclusively, but to get from my trannies to prints, I go via the computer. That's somewhat frowned upon here, so I don't post anything at all. I could indeed show you scans of my trannies, but they would forever be doubted as "manipulated", so there's not much point.
    Your site is terrific. The images are superb and, for me at least, the color work is as enjoyable as the b&w. It's my guess that b&w is prevelant here as much because it's easier to process and offers a large palette of controls for the amateur enthusiast than for any other single reason. (My excuse is that I'm just color blind enough that I could never even make a 'first' print from which to calibrate others, let alone work consistenly in that medium.) In any case there's no sensible reason to resist sharing your work with the rest of us. It would be welcome!!
    John Voss

    My Blog

  6. #26
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
    I shoot colour almost exclusively, but to get from my trannies to prints, I go via the computer. That's somewhat frowned upon here, so I don't post anything at all. I could indeed show you scans of my trannies, but they would forever be doubted as "manipulated", so there's not much point.
    I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Why would a scan of a slide be less valid or considered more manipulated than a scan of a print?

    I've recently posted the scan of a Velvia slide in the Standard Gallery and not had any negative reaction to it (although the day is yet young! ). Speaking for myself, I'd very much like to see some of your work there, Graeme.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    My prattle is about the way it is taught in conjunction with photography. It is not photography that is being taught. That is tertirary in importance in todays photography classes dealing with digital. PS as a tool to create art in a borad sense is fine. I rile at the fact it is not the art of photography, it is the art of photoshop. Call it by its true name.
    This is not a fault caused by Photoshop. This is caused by instructors who don't know what they're doing, but are still allowed to teach.

    Twenty-seven years ago, I took a photo course at a university with a well respected photo department. The work done for the course was only in black and white.

    The instructor said, "I'm required to give you a lecture on filters." "I don't use them, and I don't know any photographers that do." That was the end of the lecture on filters. As a graduate from a well known technical institute located in Rochester, NY., I almost fell off my chair. I also couldn't help but wonder about an institution of higher learning that would let someone, who was not fully proficient in the technical aspects of photography, teach at that level.

    My point being, don't blame a software program for poor photographic instruction. Poor photographic instruction is the fault of the instructor, and department. Photoshop cannot make a bad photograph good, anymore than hours spent in a darkroom will make a bad photograph good.

    While Photoshop does provide an easier means to recover a badly exposed image, the same can be done with dodging, burning, masks, etc. It will not improve a badly seen, badly composed, or badly conceived image.

    It seems the mindset of most people who are analog photography (only) advocates is - 1 exposure = 1 image. Only make a print of that exposure so you don't muck up the "purity" of photography and you exactly reproduce, to the best of your ability, the reality in front of the lens.

    My question for that attitude is: how do you rate a Jerry Uelsmann or a Patrick Nagatani? Their images were created through strictly photographic processes - no Photoshop involved.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    696
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB
    I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Why would a scan of a slide be less valid or considered more manipulated than a scan of a print?
    That's a damn good question Frank, but I can't answer it on this forum without causing problems for some of its members.

    You see, I'm not averse to dodging and burning the image in "That Evil Program" before I print it. Thus, (nearly) all my images fall into the hybrid category, and therein lies my reluctance to post here. The file is essentially the same as the tranny, but it has had digital work applied as one applies darkroom skills to a negative.

    So, I think it best if I refrain from posting images for the time being. I'm happy reading the threads on exposing film, making digital contact negs and using LF cameras. As Jorge correctly noted, I have other avenues to post my images where nobody takes offense at how they were derived. Why rock the boat here?

    (But I am feeling a lot more welcome now - thanks for the votes of confidence ....)

    Cheers,
    Graeme Hird
    www.scenebyhird.com

    Failure is NOT an option! It comes bundled with your software ....

  9. #29
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
    That's a damn good question Frank, but I can't answer it on this forum without causing problems for some of its members.

    You see, I'm not averse to dodging and burning the image in "That Evil Program" before I print it. Thus, (nearly) all my images fall into the hybrid category, and therein lies my reluctance to post here. The file is essentially the same as the tranny, but it has had digital work applied as one applies darkroom skills to a negative.
    Fair enough, Graeme. My question was made on the assumption that it was a straight scan with possibly a little level correction to overcome the shortcomings of the scanner.

    I'll mosey on over to your website and see the images there.

    (If there any Texans passing who could give instructions on the correct moseying technique then I'd be much obliged. We're not all that good at it in Wigan...! )

  10. #30
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
    You see, I'm not averse to dodging and burning the image in "That Evil Program" before I print it. Thus, (nearly) all my images fall into the hybrid category, and therein lies my reluctance to post here. The file is essentially the same as the tranny, but it has had digital work applied as one applies darkroom skills to a negative.

    So, I think it best if I refrain from posting images for the time being.
    Graeme,

    I don't think you need to refrain posting for that reason. I'm not adverse to doing the same myself; my objection with PS comes when a photo is manipulated and the subject is no longer real because of it. My technique is to scan the transparency, correct the color and print on a Fuji Crystal Archive paper (a real photo paper). You just need to be sensitive to those who choose not to use this technique.

    I look forward to seeing some of your work on the forum, I've visited your website. I may even visit West Australia someday; I've been wanting to visit Perth. I have been to Alice Springs a couple of times, and I'm going to be shooting along the Murray River - from Albury/Wodonga to Murray Bridge - in Victoria next month. I usually visit Australia every year or two.

    Thanks,
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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