Re: A different tak on Photo-manipulation.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pete A, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-10-09 18:26:30 +0100, Savageduck said:

    > This was shared on G+ this morning. It is very interesting with regard
    > to new technology and photo-manipulation.
    >
    > Take a look at the imbedded video. The narrator has got what is
    > possibly the dullest presentation voice ever put to tape, but that does
    > not detract from what he is demonstrating.
    > < http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/10/09/re-defining-photo-manipulation/ >


    I hope this kind of technology will inspire creativity in much the same
    way as computer-generated music has done. There are some very fine
    tunes around that are too complex for musicians to play "live" let
    alone the lifetime it would take to compose an album using traditional
    methods.

    I'm surprised that we don't have cameras which analyse the scene then
    display in the EVF a choice of framing options for the operator to
    consider. It's a just an extension of the built-in scene recognition
    system.
    Pete A, Oct 9, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pete A

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 9, 2:31 pm, Pete A <> wrote:
    > On 2011-10-09 18:26:30 +0100, Savageduck said:
    >
    > > This was shared on G+ this morning. It is very interesting with regard
    > > to new technology and photo-manipulation.

    >
    > > Take a look at the imbedded video. The narrator has got what is
    > > possibly the dullest presentation voice ever put to tape, but that does
    > > not detract from what he is demonstrating.
    > > <http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/10/09/re-defining-photo-manipulation/>

    >
    > I hope this kind of technology will inspire creativity in much the same
    > way as computer-generated music has done. There are some very fine
    > tunes around that are too complex for musicians to play "live" let
    > alone the lifetime it would take to compose an album using traditional
    > methods.


    What kind of person wants to listen to machine-made music? Same kind
    of dead-eyed soul-less people who would want to watch robots proxy-
    boxing for humans?

    http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3288&p=.htm
    RichA, Oct 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-10-10 08:11:58 +0100, RichA said:

    > On Oct 9, 2:31 pm, Pete A <> wrote:
    >> On 2011-10-09 18:26:30 +0100, Savageduck said:
    >>
    >>> This was shared on G+ this morning. It is very interesting with regard
    >>> to new technology and photo-manipulation.

    >>
    >>> Take a look at the imbedded video. The narrator has got what is
    >>> possibly the dullest presentation voice ever put to tape, but that does
    >>> not detract from what he is demonstrating.
    >>> <http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/10/09/re-defining-photo-manipulation/>

    >>
    >> I hope this kind of technology will inspire creativity in much the same
    >> way as computer-generated music has done. There are some very fine
    >> tunes around that are too complex for musicians to play "live" let
    >> alone the lifetime it would take to compose an album using traditional
    >> methods.

    >
    > What kind of person wants to listen to machine-made music? Same kind
    > of dead-eyed soul-less people who would want to watch robots proxy-
    > boxing for humans?
    >
    > http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3288&p=.htm


    Your URL is totally lost on me.

    To answer your question "What kind of person wants to listen to
    machine-made music?" I can only reply "I don't know what kind of
    person, but they number in the millions." I address the sterility
    aspect you inferred at the end of this post.

    For those of us unable to attend live performances, recordings are
    worthwhile entertainment as are machine-synthesized/generated
    instruments, timings, and rhythms.

    Custom-built cathedral pipe organs are the ultimate in music creation
    machines. Each has has it's own quirks and has to be operated by a
    master musician for best effect. These machines, in their environment,
    are capable of stirring a wider range of moods and emotions than any
    other musical instrument ever conceived.

    The Hammond organ and (later) the Fender Rhodes took this awesome
    machine-enabled power of expression into theatres and clubs then into
    the home environment via studio recordings.

    Even the latest Yamaha electric pianos cannot match the sound of a
    Steinway, but very few people could hear the difference in a theatre or
    in their own living rooms. Accurately recording a Steinway is
    impossible because it's sound combines with its environment and varies
    with listening angle and distance. Yamaha electric pianos have a wide
    variety of sound options and can be tailored to the musical style being
    portrayed - very enjoyable machines indeed. Yamaha's top-of-the-range
    organs have been thrilling audiences for decades as have the
    instruments from Akai, Roland et el. Even Technics have instruments
    that are far more than tolerable for home and club entertainment.

    All digital audio recording made in pro. studios are
    computer-generated: equalisation, echo, reverberation,
    stereo-positioning (the overall sound-stage), levelling,
    compression/limiting, etc. etc. are computer algorithms having only
    their parameters adjusted by the operator. A concept developed from the
    Moog synthesizer.

    As to the sterility of computer-generated music (specifically, I mean
    precision-timed plus composed by rule), I suggest you read up on the
    findings of Lionel Richie and Steely Dan. I am privileged to have
    watched documentaries featuring these artists who had extraordinary
    insights into what makes music really enjoyable and/or sellable. Donald
    Fagen (formally a member of Steely Dan) has only two albums that I know
    of: his first "The Nightfly" (1982) has every note perfect and timed to
    within a millisecond or two, which is so awesomely uncanny it is almost
    addictive; his second "Kamakiriad" (1993) makes use of a real backing
    orchestra with realistic human mistiming, which is awesome because the
    album theme is futuristic and it works only because the musicianship is
    realistic rather than computer-generated.

    YMMV.
    Pete A, Oct 11, 2011
    #3
  4. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-10-11 20:08:49 +0100, Savageduck said:

    > On 2011-10-11 10:52:03 -0700, Pete A <> said:
    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>
    >> As to the sterility of computer-generated music (specifically, I mean
    >> precision-timed plus composed by rule), I suggest you read up on the
    >> findings of Lionel Richie and Steely Dan. I am privileged to have
    >> watched documentaries featuring these artists who had extraordinary
    >> insights into what makes music really enjoyable and/or sellable. Donald
    >> Fagen (formally a member of Steely Dan) has only two albums that I know
    >> of: his first "The Nightfly" (1982) has every note perfect and timed to
    >> within a millisecond or two, which is so awesomely uncanny it is almost
    >> addictive; his second "Kamakiriad" (1993) makes use of a real backing
    >> orchestra with realistic human mistiming, which is awesome because the
    >> album theme is futuristic and it works only because the musicianship is
    >> realistic rather than computer-generated.
    >>
    >> YMMV.

    >
    >
    > Steely Dan still lives, and is currently on tour. I saw them in concert
    > in 2009 and they are as good with the current line up as they ever were.
    > < http://www.steelydan.com/ >
    >
    > Fagin and Becker, the core of Steely Dan have both produced solo
    > efforts. Fagin produced a third album in 2006 "Morph the Cat" and is
    > slated to have a fourth, "Soulful Instinct" released this year.


    Many thanks - I shall look out for these albums and buy the CDs (not
    the MP3s) when I find them.
    Pete A, Oct 11, 2011
    #4
  5. Pete A

    Bruce Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    >I know two people, one an internationally known pianist and the other
    >a locally well known organist. To my ear, their performances have the
    >same defect in common: they play with metronomically accurate
    >precision. If you listen to the great performers on these instruments
    >you will become aware that that there are subtle variations in their
    >timing, often from note to note, and they use this to round off the
    >expression in their music.



    At a more prosaic level, there are significant variations in timing in
    many Beatles songs. This was mostly because the near-metronomic
    rhythm that most drummers were capable of was something that often
    eluded Ringo Starr. At times, there was almost a pause in the music.

    It worked because when you listen to the songs, the other band members
    would instantly adapt to Ringo's changes of tempo. Not only were they
    not immediately noticeable, they actually worked reasonably well. I
    am not trying to suggest that they enhanced the band's performance,
    merely that they did not significantly detract from it.

    A journalist once asked John Lennon whether Ringo Starr was the best
    drummer in the world. He replied "He's not even the best drummer in
    the Beatles!"
    Bruce, Oct 11, 2011
    #5
  6. Pete A

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/10/2011 3:11 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On Oct 9, 2:31 pm, Pete A<> wrote:
    >> On 2011-10-09 18:26:30 +0100, Savageduck said:
    >>
    >>> This was shared on G+ this morning. It is very interesting with regard
    >>> to new technology and photo-manipulation.

    >>
    >>> Take a look at the imbedded video. The narrator has got what is
    >>> possibly the dullest presentation voice ever put to tape, but that does
    >>> not detract from what he is demonstrating.
    >>> <http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/10/09/re-defining-photo-manipulation/>

    >>
    >> I hope this kind of technology will inspire creativity in much the same
    >> way as computer-generated music has done. There are some very fine
    >> tunes around that are too complex for musicians to play "live" let
    >> alone the lifetime it would take to compose an album using traditional
    >> methods.

    >
    > What kind of person wants to listen to machine-made music? Same kind
    > of dead-eyed soul-less people who would want to watch robots proxy-
    > boxing for humans?
    >
    > http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3288&p=.htm


    Your creativity is showing. What is wrong with a machine that
    transcripts music to musical notation and scans a musical notation to
    create music?
    Indeed has I continued for my masters, my thesis would have been based
    around that very subject.

    BTW have you answered my prior questions?

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 12, 2011
    #6
  7. Pete A

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/11/2011 4:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:52:03 +0100, Pete A
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> As to the sterility of computer-generated music (specifically, I mean
    >> precision-timed plus composed by rule), I suggest you read up on the
    >> findings of Lionel Richie and Steely Dan. I am privileged to have
    >> watched documentaries featuring these artists who had extraordinary
    >> insights into what makes music really enjoyable and/or sellable. Donald
    >> Fagen (formally a member of Steely Dan) has only two albums that I know
    >> of: his first "The Nightfly" (1982) has every note perfect and timed to
    >> within a millisecond or two, which is so awesomely uncanny it is almost
    >> addictive; his second "Kamakiriad" (1993) makes use of a real backing
    >> orchestra with realistic human mistiming, which is awesome because the
    >> album theme is futuristic and it works only because the musicianship is
    >> realistic rather than computer-generated.

    >
    > I know two people, one an internationally known pianist and the other
    > a locally well known organist. To my ear, their performances have the
    > same defect in common: they play with metronomically accurate
    > precision. If you listen to the great performers on these instruments
    > you will become aware that that there are subtle variations in their
    > timing, often from note to note, and they use this to round off the
    > expression in their music.
    >
    > I once sat in on an organ master class run by Peter Hurford
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hurford and heard him say
    > "controlling the gaps between the notes" is important as maintaining
    > the correct tempi.
    >


    Mechanical perfection <> fine music. There are subtle imperfections and
    slight variations in volume, pitch and tempo that can make for a great
    performance.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 12, 2011
    #7
  8. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-10-12 00:45:20 +0100, PeterN said:

    > [...]
    > There are those who claim that the music enhances the enjoyment of drugs.


    A few years ago BBC Radio 1 broadcast evening programmes in the hope of
    educating drug users on this very topic. I learnt things I didn't want
    to know about why young people strive to work hard during the week - to
    save enough to enjoy music and drugs on Friday and Saturday nights. The
    broadcasts were educational, non-judgemental, and filled with good
    advice for those who wished to persist with this pastime. Unfortunately
    the broadcasts were stopped because the BBC soon realised that those
    who needed to listen switched to another radio channel. The last thing
    a drug user wants is to be educated in public.

    My "ecstasy pill" is music. It's legal and a lot cheaper, but I can
    understand that it therefore categorises it for many as "not
    fun/boring."
    Pete A, Oct 12, 2011
    #8
  9. Pete A

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/11/2011 8:42 PM, Pete A wrote:
    > On 2011-10-12 00:45:20 +0100, PeterN said:
    >
    >> [...]
    >> There are those who claim that the music enhances the enjoyment of drugs.

    >
    > A few years ago BBC Radio 1 broadcast evening programmes in the hope of
    > educating drug users on this very topic. I learnt things I didn't want
    > to know about why young people strive to work hard during the week - to
    > save enough to enjoy music and drugs on Friday and Saturday nights. The
    > broadcasts were educational, non-judgemental, and filled with good
    > advice for those who wished to persist with this pastime. Unfortunately
    > the broadcasts were stopped because the BBC soon realised that those who
    > needed to listen switched to another radio channel. The last thing a
    > drug user wants is to be educated in public.
    >
    > My "ecstasy pill" is music. It's legal and a lot cheaper, but I can
    > understand that it therefore categorises it for many as "not fun/boring."
    >


    Mine is Photoshop. Last night I said I was going to sleep about 9. At
    11:30 I was so engrossed that I had no concept of what was happening
    around me. And yes the radio was on and I was zoned. ;-)

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 12, 2011
    #9
  10. Pete A

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/11/2011 2:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-10-10 00:11:58 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> On Oct 9, 2:31 pm, Pete A <> wrote:
    >>> On 2011-10-09 18:26:30 +0100, Savageduck said:
    >>>
    >>>> This was shared on G+ this morning. It is very interesting with regard
    >>>> to new technology and photo-manipulation.
    >>>
    >>>> Take a look at the imbedded video. The narrator has got what is
    >>>> possibly the dullest presentation voice ever put to tape, but that does
    >>>> not detract from what he is demonstrating.
    >>>> <http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/10/09/re-defining-photo-manipulation/>
    >>>
    >>> I hope this kind of technology will inspire creativity in much the same
    >>> way as computer-generated music has done. There are some very fine
    >>> tunes around that are too complex for musicians to play "live" let
    >>> alone the lifetime it would take to compose an album using traditional
    >>> methods.

    >>
    >> What kind of person wants to listen to machine-made music? Same kind
    >> of dead-eyed soul-less people who would want to watch robots proxy-
    >> boxing for humans?

    >
    > That depends on your definition of machine.
    > Piano, pipe-organ, calliope all seem to be machines to me. They
    > mechanically produce sound when acted upon by hands.


    I cannot think of a man made musical instrument winch is not a machine.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 12, 2011
    #10
  11. Pete A

    notbob Guest

    On 2011-10-12, PeterN <> wrote:

    > I cannot think of a man made musical instrument winch is not a machine.


    Yer lips?
    notbob, Oct 12, 2011
    #11
  12. Pete A

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/12/2011 10:57 AM, notbob wrote:
    > On 2011-10-12, PeterN<> wrote:
    >
    >> I cannot think of a man made musical instrument winch is not a machine.

    >
    > Yer lips?



    Not man made

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 12, 2011
    #12
  13. Pete A

    notbob Guest

    On 2011-10-12, PeterN <> wrote:

    >> Yer lips?

    >
    >
    > Not man made


    I don't know what test tube you came out of, but my father was
    definitely a man.

    nb
    notbob, Oct 12, 2011
    #13
  14. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-10-12 13:27:57 +0100, PeterN said:

    > On 10/11/2011 8:42 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >> On 2011-10-12 00:45:20 +0100, PeterN said:
    >>
    >>> [...]
    >>> There are those who claim that the music enhances the enjoyment of drugs.

    >>
    >> A few years ago BBC Radio 1 broadcast evening programmes in the hope of
    >> educating drug users on this very topic. I learnt things I didn't want
    >> to know about why young people strive to work hard during the week - to
    >> save enough to enjoy music and drugs on Friday and Saturday nights. The
    >> broadcasts were educational, non-judgemental, and filled with good
    >> advice for those who wished to persist with this pastime. Unfortunately
    >> the broadcasts were stopped because the BBC soon realised that those who
    >> needed to listen switched to another radio channel. The last thing a
    >> drug user wants is to be educated in public.
    >>
    >> My "ecstasy pill" is music. It's legal and a lot cheaper, but I can
    >> understand that it therefore categorises it for many as "not fun/boring."
    >>

    >
    > Mine is Photoshop. Last night I said I was going to sleep about 9. At
    > 11:30 I was so engrossed that I had no concept of what was happening
    > around me. And yes the radio was on and I was zoned. ;-)


    I've been thinking about your reply... Capture NX2 has the same effect
    on me. Many hours have flown by while I'm engrossed in, say, colour
    manipulations via its multi-faceted LCH controls.

    I have one image that's had me stumped for over a year: I've spent
    dozens of hours producing 4 variations of it and I like each version
    for different reasons yet I am unable figure out how to combine the
    best elements of each into one image. I've thought about posting links
    to the images and asking for assistance, but for some unknown reason
    I'm determined to figure it out by myself, even if it takes a few
    years. The image would never be sellable even if I "get it right"
    because the composition isn't good enough. Each time I think of
    deleting it and moving on, it taunts me into keeping it.

    My only photographic passion has always been nigh shots, especially of
    industry. 35 mm film plus a plethora of filters followed by printing by
    experts never achieved quite what I was looking for. Digital _is_
    capable of giving me the results I want so I must learn how to do it by
    myself because I can't explain to anyone else the concepts in my head
    until I have an example image. Catch-22.

    I'm not a great believer in "goal setting" despite the fact it's used
    as a motivation technique in workplaces and has become lucrative for
    many self-acclaimed "Life Coaches." I prefer a barely achievable/rarely
    achieved ambition as a source of motivation now that I'm retired -
    enticing rather than a "must do."
    Pete A, Oct 14, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Elizabeth McMenemy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    592
    Toolman Tim
    Apr 18, 2004
  2. Alan Justice
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
    Alan Justice
    Jun 8, 2005
  3. NikkoJay via PhotoKB.com

    photo manipulation

    NikkoJay via PhotoKB.com, Oct 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    314
  4. Will Dockery

    Will Dockery photo (original & photoshop manipulation)

    Will Dockery, Jul 8, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    447
    Orson Wells as CitizenCain
    Oct 13, 2009
  5. RichA

    Microsoft ad endorses photo manipulation

    RichA, Oct 22, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    50
    Views:
    991
    John Turco
    Nov 28, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page