I've hated this from the getgo. It goes hand-in-hand with what some people define as "distractions". The classic line is "Why didn't you remove that 'distractor' with Photoshop?"
Originally Posted by ian_greant
I guess I'm a Troglodite. I will never understand such a mentality.
Yep, certainly has, and it is not worth it to rehash it. All I am saying is APUG is not all that A, and when Sean made a poll about allowing digital, most did not vote or said digital was fine with them, well here are the results. As I said, I have no sympathy for anybody who comes to APUG and complains about their ink jet prints not looking good. I understand their frustration, but I have no sympathy.
Jorge I fail to see the difference between scanning a print, scanning a positive slide or scanning a negative and inverting to positive. If the scan is manipulated then I agree but we have to get them up here somehow. But I get the feeling this has all been discussed before in the posting you refer to in passing.
I am just being honest here, I have nothing against Dave Miller. OTOH your comment is part of the problem, lines have blurred so much people no longer see the difference. Last I knew, when doing analog photography in order for you to get a positve image from a negative, you had to print it.
Do you recall a thread a few weeks back where someone commented that other online galleries looked much better than APUG's? We all jumped down his throat and said " ah well, the images here might not look so good because they are scans from prints" etc, etc. What excuse do we have now? We are not becoming better and mastering one side or the other.
I could go on, but I just loaded some holders and rather go out and take pictures than rehashing this.
well said mi amigo!
I agree with Jorge. The line has been crossed. There is an image in the critique gallery that started as a color image and then converted in PS. That is manipulation.
Slowly, digital is making its way in and I for one feel it is not welcome in this forum. If I wanted to post a digitally converted image I would do it in a gallery that was appropriate, like Pnet, or some other digital forum. Here is the image in question. It is nice but does not beong on an analogue site.
There is a great place to discuss inkjet prints. P.net digital darkroom would be the place to start. Just remember to make the distinction between PPi and DPI. People get a bit pissed if you don't.
This is a great community with a specific purpose, let us not blur that purpose.
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
Attended a Jerry Uelsmann lecture Friday night; and he mentioned his technique for post-visualization included using 3 enlargers set-up with separate negatives, then moved the paper/print thru the enlarger setups to produce his surreal images. While viewing his images, I felt I've frequently seen similiar images at photo.net. Post-visualization, including the conversion of image from color to B&W, is so much easier to do now with photoshop. It is a valid artistic methodology, and I do like the image in question.
That being said, however, I come here to learn traditional methods for photo creation, not desaturation, levels, layers, etc.. I can sympathize with those without access to darkroom usage but yet who want to have their images critiqued by more knowledgeable photographers than those usually found at photo.net, etc.. As I initially did on this site, I'd suggest contact printing on AZO - all you need is a light bulb, a few trays & a bathroom (what could be simpler).
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm very pro digital and would love to have some digital discussion within this forum for I do respect the views of the membership but I have to agree with Jorge on this issue. APUG is an analogue site and whilst we have to use some digital means to prepare images for inclusion in the gallery maybe too much discussion about photoshop and other digital issues are creeping in.
You have my sympathy Dave, If you lived over here I'd let ya use my darkroom to make that print
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
When I first came across this old tree clutching stones in it's roots I thought that it was an interesting subject for a photograph. Unfortunately, there was a small dead sapling leaning across the frame in front of the trunk, distracting and interfering with the composition and ruining the shot.
I took off my shoes, rolled up my pants and waded the twenty five feet through swiftly moving, knee deep water over slippery, moss-covered rocks, arms comically spinning like propellors as I desparately tried to retain my balance (alas, retaining my dignity was already a lost cause). It was like trying to walk on bowling balls covered in axle grease. Once across, I easily snapped off the sapling, pitched it down the river and made the precarious journey back across the stream where I had wisely left my equipment.
I'm reasonably adept at PS from using it over the years in my work and it would have been quick, easy (and definitely safer) to use the clone stamp to erase the branch from a scan of the negative... and darken a few things and paint in some nice highlights that nature had thoughtlessly neglected to provide. This isn't a great negative but I'm going to return at an appropriate time of the day and reshoot. I may do a bit of burning and dodging with my hands under the enlarger but I am going to value that print more for the effort.
It could be argued that I manipulated the image physically before exposure rather than digitally after the picture was taken and scanned. Are these comparable sins?
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
Advanced Photoshop User Group....right?
Originally Posted by Chuck (CA)
(Why are you guys putting me on the fire?)
My problem is that the ink keeps running when I put it in the developer!!!
Originally Posted by TPPhotog