The "PhotoShop" Issue.
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August) available until March 31st, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Very apt indeed. Particularly as I had to look up the meaning (even languages pass)
Here is another interesting example. These are stills taken from motion picture recording but the principle remains the same.
This material is filmed in LOG format which is movie equivalent to RAW files and that is the "Flat" looking frames you see are what is described as "Straight out of the camera" (It still has to be processed for us to even see that of course.)
The more natural looking frames are the result of final processing to render the footage.
This is probably the closest you could get to demonstrating the difference between a raw capture and a image ready for display.
This material is filmed in LOG format which is movie equivalent to RAW files and that is the "Flat" looking frames you see are what is described as "Straight out of the camera" (It still has to be processed for us to even see that of course.)
The more natural looking frames are the result of final processing to render the footage.
This is probably the closest you could get to demonstrating the difference between a raw capture and a image ready for display.
I use everything from digital rangefinders through to 10x8 film cameras. I am tinkering with wet plate next.It's much like saying "That's a good photo, you must have an expensive camera..."The most important part of any camera is the photographer behind it.
One of the best pictures I have taken was with a £10 waterproof disposable camera! won prizes with it also!
I hate contests now. I take photographs for me. if someone else likes them, great, If not so what?
Digital and film are different and both good. But as with any tool, over use of them tends to 'kill' the object. Bit like over working a painting.
Last edited:
"a good photographer with an iPhone would out-perform a twit with a Leica any day..."
I like that - seen lotsa twitz with Leicas etc...
I like that - seen lotsa twitz with Leicas etc...
Digital photography has brought huge numbers of people into the world of captured images.
That is a real plus. What they want to be clever with in manipulation is of no concern of mine.
Still shooting nothing smaller than 6x9 B&W silver, I do not long for the instant gratification. I know that
I applied the Zone System effectively, I`ll soup the 4x5`s one at a time. I expect to dodge and burn in the
darkroom like I have done for nearly 60 years.
At the end of the day, I do less and less retouching as I need to make the viewers understand that really big (32 x 40)
B&W silver, analog prints are the real deal - real big and real sharp and no grain. (so sorry: pixels)
DigitalÉ Just another way of doing things. Thrust and pushed on me but tasteless no matter how much garlic there is.
That is a real plus. What they want to be clever with in manipulation is of no concern of mine.
Still shooting nothing smaller than 6x9 B&W silver, I do not long for the instant gratification. I know that
I applied the Zone System effectively, I`ll soup the 4x5`s one at a time. I expect to dodge and burn in the
darkroom like I have done for nearly 60 years.
At the end of the day, I do less and less retouching as I need to make the viewers understand that really big (32 x 40)
B&W silver, analog prints are the real deal - real big and real sharp and no grain. (so sorry: pixels)
DigitalÉ Just another way of doing things. Thrust and pushed on me but tasteless no matter how much garlic there is.
small mercy on any pictures with people in you can usually tell if it’s AI with the extra fingers…..for now!
Must be really annoying for people with extra fingers though. Now they are no longer real.
It’s causing much scratching of heads in the competition and exhibition circuit I can tell you.
Problem is that Photoshop and some other programs are automatically incorporating it’s technology and capabilities into many of their retouching tools because they are convenient for professionals but that blurs the lines when exhibition submissions demand that all work should be exclusively that of the photographer.
Problem is that Photoshop and some other programs are automatically incorporating it’s technology and capabilities into many of their retouching tools because they are convenient for professionals but that blurs the lines when exhibition submissions demand that all work should be exclusively that of the photographer.
Used to work with a guy who was born with 6 digits on his hands but one had been removed his thumbs were longer than my fingers. It was an odd experience being him peel and orange
Did not catch this thread the first time, good reading. Anyway the discussion of what is real in a pic is made more complicated by the fact that people see colours slightly differently, some miss some receptors and some have extra (there are women who have two sets of red receptors.) Whose reality is the correct one?
I see working on colours and gamma curves acceptable but taking off or adding features not. HDR in my mind belongs to to the allowable though it sometimes produces very unreal looking scenes. As far as I understand it is equivalent to playing with the gamma.
I see working on colours and gamma curves acceptable but taking off or adding features not. HDR in my mind belongs to to the allowable though it sometimes produces very unreal looking scenes. As far as I understand it is equivalent to playing with the gamma.
Photography has always used the best technology available to enhance the picture in B&W and colour - filters, dodging, papers and chemical etc. Now, you need to be proficient in a completely different tool set.
It took me a long time to switch from film to digital and I still miss the darkroom. But then, we used to think anyone that used a film development and printing company was cheating and not a proper photographer
It took me a long time to switch from film to digital and I still miss the darkroom. But then, we used to think anyone that used a film development and printing company was cheating and not a proper photographer
Likewise, the darkroom was a very enjoyably part of the process that I miss too. Still got a lot of the gear in the attic, can’t bring myself to get rid of it.Photography has always used the best technology available to enhance the picture in B&W and colour - filters, dodging, papers and chemical etc. Now, you need to be proficient in a completely different tool set.
It took me a long time to switch from film to digital and I still miss the darkroom. But then, we used to think anyone that used a film development and printing company was cheating and not a proper photographer
For me, it was where my images came to life. I only really worked in mono and the results straight from a negative on a grade 2 or three paper often felt flat and lifeless.
Switch to a grade 5 and dodge for your life and the images left off the paper.
Contrast management like that has become second nature on the computer and capable of treating colour images in the same way.
That has transformed photographic quality and is why I suspect that gear in the attic will never be used again in my lifetime.
Yep, same here. I'm contemplating putting B&W film through my Bronica, getting it processed, then scanning the negatives to manipulate and print digitally. Why? I'm not sure, maybe just to get a connection with the 'old ways'
Still got my Broni too.Yep, same here. I'm contemplating putting B&W film through my Bronica, getting it processed, then scanning the negatives to manipulate and print digitally. Why? I'm not sure, maybe just to get a connection with the 'old ways'
Similar threads
