Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [SI] Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

 
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Nov 27, 8:42*pm, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:59:42 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >: On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
> >:
> >: > I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only
> >: > legitimate reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance
> >: > of deception.
> >:
> >: The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
> >: editing.

>
> >There isn't any difference. The picture is taken by a computer (politely
> >referred to as a "digital camera") and edited with another computer. What
> >difference does it make which is which?

>
> >: Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
> >: tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
> >: essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
> >: photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation..

>
> >There are no "darkroom photographers", just as there are no longer any glass
> >plates. Can we please stop living in the past?

>
> I'm inclined to support anyone who advocates leaving the whole
> situation wide open.


Whoever is willing to do the work is welcome to make the rules, as far
as I'm concerned.

Of course, the peasants are free to vote with their feet if they don't
like it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:56:28 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On 11/27/2012 5:59 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
: > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > : On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
: > :
: > : > I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only
: > : > legitimate reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance
: > : > of deception.
: > :
: > : The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
: > : editing.
: >
: > There isn't any difference. The picture is taken by a computer (politely
: > referred to as a "digital camera") and edited with another computer. What
: > difference does it make which is which?
: >
: > : Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
: > : tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
: > : essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
: > : photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.
: >
: > There are no "darkroom photographers", just as there are no longer any glass
: > plates. Can we please stop living in the past?
: >
: > Bob
: >
:
: If one were to purposely forget past photographic processing practices,
: using the progression to further enhance new practices, the progression
: of photography (be it craft or art form) will become stagnant.

It will? Why?

Actually, I don't propose to forget past photographic processing practices; I
simply propose to treat them as history, rather then as an ongoing imperative.

: What has been learned in the past becomes the stepping stones to the
: gaining of knowledge. Forget what took years to learn and mediocrity
: will exemplify the product of your work.

Yeah, maybe, but I'm not suggesting that we forget. I just don't think we
should be unnecessarily constrained by the past.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:43:40 -0500, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 11/27/2012 2:48 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:58:04 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:38:07 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
>>>>> : <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to be late to the party, but Martha and I just got back from visiting
>>>>> our daughter and her family in Philadelphia. I was able to read the
>>>>> newsgroups, but not to respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> : I received an email from our new Respected Ruler of the Shoot-In
>>>>> : stating that two submissions by my daughter had been omitted from the
>>>>> : Official site because of excessive Photoshop editing.
>>>>> :
>>>>> : I guess I must have missed the post(s) specifying that there was a
>>>>> : limit on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I missed it too.
>>>>>
>>>>> : This is my fault, and not my daughter's fault since she does not
>>>>> : read newsgroups. She gets her information from me on the phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief, Tony; get her a copy of Forté Agent for Christmas or something.
>>>>
>>>> That would be as useful to her as a toboggan. They do not have
>>>> internet at home. By choice.
>>>>
>>>> She takes her laptop to work and accesses the internet there, but
>>>> sometimes she doesn't even do that for a week or so at a stretch. She
>>>> and her husband have so many other interests that they felt having the
>>>> internet at home just sucked away time they'd prefer to spend on other
>>>> things.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell that to nospam.

>>
>> He will think she and her husband are luddites and hate Apple.
>>

>
>
>
>He probably should take this test:
><http://www.netaddiction.com/index.php?option=com_bfquiz&view=onepage&catid=46& Itemid=106>
>
>To see if he suffers from:
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction_disorder>
>
>And needs treatment.


If my son-in-law has an addiction, it's fishing. Living in
Jacksonville Beach, and a couple of blocks from the ocean, it's an
easy addiction to have. He crews on a boat for tarpon and other
tournaments. He doesn't get paid, but the boat's owner pays all the
expenses and entry fees and for the 4-man crew's expenses to get there
and stay there. He gets a lot of "stuff" that the sponsors give away,
though.

They also have a boat, but use it for flat fishing for redfish.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:10:03 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:02:31 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>: On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
>: <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>:
>: >On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
>: >
>: >> I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only legitimate
>: >> reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance of deception.
>: >
>: >The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
>: >editing.
>: >
>: >Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
>: >tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
>: >essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
>: >photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.
>:
>: In my opinion, changing an image substantially in such a way that
>: appears to be a normal capture is wrong for this group. Minor cleaning
>: up, even if cloning out - say - a trash barrel should not be
>: considered a problem. Let's not, in "Street", photograph a person
>: walking down the sidewalk and add an AK-47 in his hands and call it an
>: image of a terrorist, though.
>:
>: However, some like abstract output. I don't see a problem with this
>: done in Photograph or a similar program. There's no attempt to pass
>: this off as a normal capture.
>
>"Photograph"?? Can you please clarify that, Dr Freud?


Oh, I think a photograph can easily be a starting point for an
abstract.
>
>: I think the key is that if there's no intent to deceive, it's OK.
>
>Right. So can we ignore your first paragraph if the AK-47 is an obvious joke?
>

It wouldn't be right for the SI, even as a stated joke, unless the
mandate was "Photoshopped". My camera club has a competition class
for "Creative" in which anything goes and that man with an AK-47 would
be admissible.

>: However, I'll go along with whatever everyone else wants.
>
>Me too, I guess. But I sense that there may effectively be no agreement on
>what everyone else wants. :^|
>


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:44:54 -0500, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On 11/27/2012 9:15 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: > : On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
: > : > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:58:04 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > : >
: > : >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:38:07 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > : >> wrote:
: > : >> : On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
: > : >> : <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > : >>
: > : >> Sorry to be late to the party, but Martha and I just got back from visiting
: > : >> our daughter and her family in Philadelphia. I was able to read the
: > : >> newsgroups, but not to respond.
: > : >>
: > : >> : I received an email from our new Respected Ruler of the Shoot-In
: > : >> : stating that two submissions by my daughter had been omitted from the
: > : >> : Official site because of excessive Photoshop editing.
: > : >> :
: > : >> : I guess I must have missed the post(s) specifying that there was a
: > : >> : limit on this.
: > : >>
: > : >> I missed it too.
: > : >>
: > : >> : This is my fault, and not my daughter's fault since she does not
: > : >> : read newsgroups. She gets her information from me on the phone.
: > : >>
: > : >> Good grief, Tony; get her a copy of Forté Agent for Christmas or something.
: > : >
: > : > That would be as useful to her as a toboggan. They do not have
: > : > internet at home. By choice.
: > : >
: > : > She takes her laptop to work and accesses the internet there, but
: > : > sometimes she doesn't even do that for a week or so at a stretch. She
: > : > and her husband have so many other interests that they felt having the
: > : > internet at home just sucked away time they'd prefer to spend on other
: > : > things.
: > :
: > : Tell that to nospam.
: >
: > There's a serious point there, I think. Most(?) people, often including me,
: > deplore Usenet as a useless time sink. But the plain truth is that I've
: > learned as much about photography from reading these newsgroups as from all
: > other sources put together.
:
: Indeed there is a serious point. I wouldn't go as far as you, but I have
: also learned a lot about photography from these groups. I also learned
: from other sources: My camera club, workshops, and my severest critic,
: my daughter.

You and I have at least one thing in common: my daughter is my severest
critic. She's considerably more critical (and a lot blunter about it) than my
wife. And in her zone of expertise she's a better photographer than I am, so
I'd have to be crazy not to listen to her.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:38:57 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: If my son-in-law has an addiction, it's fishing. Living in
: Jacksonville Beach, and a couple of blocks from the ocean, it's an
: easy addiction to have. He crews on a boat for tarpon and other
: tournaments. He doesn't get paid, but the boat's owner pays all the
: expenses and entry fees and for the 4-man crew's expenses to get there
: and stay there. He gets a lot of "stuff" that the sponsors give away,
: though.
:
: They also have a boat, but use it for flat fishing for redfish.

Fishing, unless you're going for swordfish or other fast, aggressive fish,
provides numerous opportunities for photography.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:53:34 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:38:57 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>: If my son-in-law has an addiction, it's fishing. Living in
>: Jacksonville Beach, and a couple of blocks from the ocean, it's an
>: easy addiction to have. He crews on a boat for tarpon and other
>: tournaments. He doesn't get paid, but the boat's owner pays all the
>: expenses and entry fees and for the 4-man crew's expenses to get there
>: and stay there. He gets a lot of "stuff" that the sponsors give away,
>: though.
>:
>: They also have a boat, but use it for flat fishing for redfish.
>
>Fishing, unless you're going for swordfish or other fast, aggressive fish,
>provides numerous opportunities for photography.


His photography is mostly of surfers, and he takes those from the
beach or the pier. He makes a nice extra income from that.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On 11/27/2012 10:46 PM, Robert Coe wrote:


<snip>

>
> You and I have at least one thing in common: my daughter is my severest
> critic. She's considerably more critical (and a lot blunter about it) than my
> wife. And in her zone of expertise she's a better photographer than I am, so
> I'd have to be crazy not to listen to her.
>


That's at least two things in common. My daughter is a much better
photographer than I. Her day job is a creative director.
It's a great feeling when your kids are better than you.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On 11/27/2012 10:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:10:03 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:02:31 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> : On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
>> : <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> :
>> : >On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
>> : >
>> : >> I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only legitimate
>> : >> reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance of deception.
>> : >
>> : >The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
>> : >editing.
>> : >
>> : >Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
>> : >tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
>> : >essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
>> : >photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.
>> :
>> : In my opinion, changing an image substantially in such a way that
>> : appears to be a normal capture is wrong for this group. Minor cleaning
>> : up, even if cloning out - say - a trash barrel should not be
>> : considered a problem. Let's not, in "Street", photograph a person
>> : walking down the sidewalk and add an AK-47 in his hands and call it an
>> : image of a terrorist, though.
>> :
>> : However, some like abstract output. I don't see a problem with this
>> : done in Photograph or a similar program. There's no attempt to pass
>> : this off as a normal capture.
>>
>> "Photograph"?? Can you please clarify that, Dr Freud?

>
> Oh, I think a photograph can easily be a starting point for an
> abstract.
>>
>> : I think the key is that if there's no intent to deceive, it's OK.
>>
>> Right. So can we ignore your first paragraph if the AK-47 is an obvious joke?
>>

> It wouldn't be right for the SI, even as a stated joke, unless the
> mandate was "Photoshopped". My camera club has a competition class
> for "Creative" in which anything goes and that man with an AK-47 would
> be admissible.
>


I have the opposite POV. My tiger with a knife and fork was an obvious
altered reality. In my CC it is acceptable in any competition. (Although
it did well in the creative category.)
For me, photography is a means of expression. That I may use post
processing, is irrelevant. I haw done similar things in my wet darkroom,
although with much greater effort.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2012
On 11/27/2012 9:57 PM, otter wrote:
> On Nov 27, 8:42 pm, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:59:42 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> : On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
>>> :
>>> : > I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only
>>> : > legitimate reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance
>>> : > of deception.
>>> :
>>> : The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
>>> : editing.

>>
>>> There isn't any difference. The picture is taken by a computer (politely
>>> referred to as a "digital camera") and edited with another computer. What
>>> difference does it make which is which?

>>
>>> : Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
>>> : tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
>>> : essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
>>> : photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.

>>
>>> There are no "darkroom photographers", just as there are no longer any glass
>>> plates. Can we please stop living in the past?

>>
>> I'm inclined to support anyone who advocates leaving the whole
>> situation wide open.

>
> Whoever is willing to do the work is welcome to make the rules, as far
> as I'm concerned.
>


But, that doesn't prevent others from expressing opinions.

> Of course, the peasants are free to vote with their feet if they don't
> like it.
>

That's a bit harsh.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the penultimate week and last week of data for each month SimonC Javascript 13 01-04-2005 10:20 PM
ASP.NET: Day / Work Week / Week / Month web calendar control with view like MS Outlook ASP .Net Web Controls 3 12-22-2003 10:42 PM
ASP.NET: Day / Work Week / Week / Month web calendar control with view like MS Outlook ASP .Net 3 12-22-2003 10:42 PM
ASP.NET: Day / Work Week / Week / Month web calendar control with view like MS Outlook ASP .Net Building Controls 3 12-22-2003 10:42 PM
ron's formal apology in the MCSA group licknlabia MCSE 0 08-13-2003 12:04 AM



Advertisments