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

 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2012
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:10:01 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On 2012.11.27 20:59 , 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?
:
: You're correct that there isn't any difference, but you are out of your
: tree wrong about what the similarity is.
:
: First off the photo is not taken by a computer. It is taken by a
: photographer using a camera with a light sensitive capture media.
: Whether that media is film, a digital sensor or a little bird inside
: chiseling the presented image onto a piece of slate is immaterial.[1][2]
:
: What is material is that the above is image capture. And image capture
: is what the SI is all about. The ability of photographers to find (or
: even manufacture) a scene that meets the mandate and then capture it on
: the media with a camera. If the camera needs film and/or batteries and
: or feed for the little birdie who chisels inside, that is immaterial to
: the capture.
:
: Getting it out for presentation legitimately requires re-sizing,
: cropping, some adjustments to the overall image. It does not require
: content modification.
:
: [1] The "computer" in a digital camera does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at the
: time of capture other than allowing the shutter to be tripped. Prior to
: that point the "computer" has already set the aperture value, the
: shutter timer value and the analog gains of the sensor according to the
: settings by the photographer. It has "armed" the sensor to be ready for
: the image ('cleared' the sensor).
:
: AFTER the image is captured, then the computer is instrumental in
: copying the image from the sensor, applying digital gain (if needed),
: creating the JPG version (if needed), the thumbnail in the raw file (if
: needed), storing it to the storage media, displaying it and so on.
:
: [2] Refer to the historical documentary series "The Flintstones" for
: accurate depictions of photographic apparatus in use in the depicted period.
:
: > : 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?
:
: Of course there are darkroom photographers - that is to say
: photographers who develop and print their images in darkrooms. It is
: quite popular with some, even today.
:
: Oh, please look up analogy.

Calm down, Alan; my command of the English language is just as good as yours.

Please understand that I've had much more experience as a computer programmer
than as a photographer. I don't make the layman's error of regarding a
computer as a competitor rather than as a tool. The fact that I see a digital
camera as a computer doesn't mean that I imagine that the photographer isn't
in control.

But a digital camera opens up possibilities that weren't readily available to
film photographers, and we'll either embrace those possibilities or be
replaced by those who will. The replacement will happen eventually in any
case, but we don't have to go tamely into oblivion. Our successors will
neither respect us nor admire us if we do.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2012
On 11/28/2012 10:09 PM, Frank S wrote:
>

<snip>
>>


>
> Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
> "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
> exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
> into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
> image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
> appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
> self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
>
> Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
> participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
> few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
> participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
> simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.


The key word being "interpret." Yes, I understand that the mandate
calls for no extensive manipulation. However, if I see a potential
image, that just cries out for further interpretation, (read extensive
manipulation,) I think we should be free to do so. If there is a bright
red garbage can, I could either move it prior to taking the shot, or
later, in post There is no esthetic, or moral difference. If the sky is
dull gray when I took the shot, and the image would have looked better
with a Siskerized sky, I should be free to do so. Assuming the mandate
is necks, what is wrong with using my artistic license to extensively
stretch the neck of a giraffe for artistic, effect.
What about using perspective correction to change the angle of a building?
I have a problem with a subjective limitation. If the mandate makes it
clear that I can only do dodging, burning and cropping, then I cannot
sharpen or blur parts of the image. But, if I use a Lens-baby to achieve
the same effect, it will be OK. I agree with Bob on that issue.
Manipulation is manipulation , whether in camera, or in post. I am
permitted to use the aperture on my lens for selective focus, yet there
is a restriction on simulating the same effect in post. This makes
little sense.

>
> Dismissed.
>



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On 11/29/2012 5:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012.11.28 21:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> Calm down, Alan; my command of the English language is just as good as
>> yours.

>
> Then in the context of the above, what darkroom photographer is should
> have been clear and you should have kept your petty "living in the past"
> comment to yourself.
>
>>
>> Please understand that I've had much more experience as a computer
>> programmer
>> than as a photographer. I don't make the layman's error of regarding a
>> computer as a competitor rather than as a tool. The fact that I see a
>> digital
>> camera as a computer doesn't mean that I imagine that the photographer
>> isn't
>> in control.

>
> I too have a long history in computer programming having worked as a
> programmer for about 15 years on avionics products.
>
> However I've never mistaken a digital camera, no matter what its
> internals, for a "computer".
>
> The computer aspect of it is of least interest to me. I take the photo
> - whether with my 30 year old Hasselblad or my FF digital camera. I
> don't think of the later as a computer at all. It's a camera.
>
> The SI is about _capture_ not about editing and creative use of a
> computer to distort or correct the capture.
>
> Indeed since the SI began, when most images were film scans, the only
> difference was the conversion of the film image to digital. So for all
> those years "editing" of images was not important although the same
> tools (Photoshop etc.) were available to all from the beginning of the
> SI. It's all about, you guessed it: capture.
>
>> But a digital camera opens up possibilities that weren't readily
>> available to
>> film photographers, and we'll either embrace those possibilities or be
>> replaced by those who will. The replacement will happen eventually in any
>> case, but we don't have to go tamely into oblivion. Our successors will
>> neither respect us nor admire us if we do.

>
> You're talking about the abilities of editing programs on computers long
> after the capture is made. Film scanning has been going on for decades
> to make digital images. It's far from new or recent.
>
> But that is _not_ what the SI is all about. It was conceived around
> image capture. Not editing.
>


And if the participants would like a change, does that mean it can't
evolve.
Heck, if mens bars can accept women, then SI can change.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: [snipped for brevity]
:
: If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
: bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
:
: Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
: "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
: exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
: into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
: image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
: appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
: self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.

I try to stay out of ****ing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I stand
by every word.

: Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
: participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
: few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
: participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
: simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.

I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with closed
minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first loaded
a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the younger
members of our group.

: Dismissed.

In your dreams.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012

"Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :
> : "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> : news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> : [snipped for brevity]
> :
> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
> :
> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
>
> I try to stay out of ****ing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
> stand
> by every word.
>
> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
>
> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
> closed
> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
> loaded
> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
> younger
> members of our group.
>

Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
Tim


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On 11/30/2012 11:17 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> :
>> : "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> : news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> : [snipped for brevity]
>> :
>> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
>> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
>> :
>> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
>> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
>> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
>> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
>> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
>> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
>> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
>>
>> I try to stay out of ****ing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
>> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
>> stand
>> by every word.
>>
>> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
>> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
>> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
>> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
>> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
>>
>> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
>> closed
>> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
>> loaded
>> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
>> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
>> younger
>> members of our group.
>>

> Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
> Tim
>
>


We are in a tie. I too am 75, and not at all grumpy, unless you disagree
with me.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:33:56 -0500, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 11/30/2012 11:17 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
>> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> :
>>> : "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> : news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> : [snipped for brevity]
>>> :
>>> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
>>> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
>>> :
>>> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
>>> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
>>> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
>>> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
>>> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
>>> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
>>> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
>>>
>>> I try to stay out of ****ing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
>>> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
>>> stand
>>> by every word.
>>>
>>> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
>>> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
>>> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
>>> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
>>> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
>>>
>>> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
>>> closed
>>> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
>>> loaded
>>> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
>>> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
>>> younger
>>> members of our group.
>>>

>> Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
>> Tim
>>
>>

>
>We are in a tie. I too am 75, and not at all grumpy, unless you disagree
>with me.


I'm 74 and grumpy as hell.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>:
>: "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>: news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>: [snipped for brevity]
>:
>: If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
>: bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
>:
>: Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
>: "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
>: exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
>: into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
>: image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
>: appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
>: self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
>
>I try to stay out of ****ing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
>whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I stand
>by every word.
>
>: Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
>: participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
>: few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
>: participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
>: simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
>
>I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with closed
>minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first loaded
>a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
>notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the younger
>members of our group.
>
>: Dismissed.
>
>In your dreams.



Good for you, Bob. Very well said.

(that applies equally to your original comments as well as to this
reply of yours).
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On 11/30/2012 4:26 PM, Anthony Polson wrote:
> Neil Ellwood <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Even before digital there were arguments over what we would now call post
>> processing. I remember reading many years ago about a photographer who
>> sent a set of plates back to the retouchers because the pencil hadn't
>> covered all the area. there was a stage about forty years or so ago when a
>> number of competitions were won by prints that had not been made with the
>> aid of a camera.
>>
>> There doesn't really seem to be that much new except for the methods used.

>
>
> There's one thing new, Neil, and that is the much lower average level
> of expertise on show at this time.
>



don't say it. Must... fight ......temptation......
It's too easy.......


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On 11/30/2012 9:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-30 08:17:31 -0800, "Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>
>> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>> :
>>> : "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> : news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> : [snipped for brevity]
>>> :
>>> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more
>>> you
>>> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
>>> :
>>> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
>>> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will
>>> take
>>> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
>>> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
>>> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
>>> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
>>> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
>>>
>>> I try to stay out of ****ing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
>>> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
>>> stand
>>> by every word.
>>>
>>> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
>>> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
>>> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of
>>> other
>>> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
>>> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
>>>
>>> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
>>> closed
>>> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
>>> loaded
>>> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss
>>> that
>>> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
>>> younger
>>> members of our group.
>>>

>> Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
>> Tim

>
> Yup! This is something of an old fart's group. I am 64 in February.
> Among the regulars I believe we have a few in the mid-40's to mid-50's.
> Then there are the occasional, true adolescent novices sincerely seeking
> advice (not a problem), and the mental adolescents attempting to foist
> their personal agendas on the World.
>


I guess I'm a lurking flowerpot 'cause I'm pushing 85.

Nick


 
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