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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    <> wrote:


    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. 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.

    The two images not used were deliberate, and obvious, manipulations
    using a mirror-imaging processing technique. There was no attempt to
    "fool" anyone since the technique is so obvious. These are the two
    images:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvt57ajfuu9gcyc/Curves_Two Waves_ClearyC.jpg

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/g77zhkd78klw43i/Curves_Wave Owl Face_ClearyC.jpg

    In fairness and full disclosure, I Photoshopped the hell out of my
    image "Dome". There was quite a bit of color enhancement done in the
    processing and some blown-out reflections taken out. In
    "Reflections", I used Photoshop to straighten up the horizontal and
    vertical lines since the perspective was off because I was shooting up
    on a scene higher than street level. There's some color enhancement
    of the flowers in "Stained Glass" because the actual window's colors
    were dark.

    As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    Photoshop" rule. It wasn't repeated in the directions. I apologize
    and am self-imposing a post-season ban and will not participate in any
    bowl games.




    > Curves
    >
    > DUE: Sunday, 2012.11.18::23:59
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/curve
    >
    >Submit three photos exemplifying curved lines. Find curves in unusual
    >places. Use shadows and reflections to curve what's straight and
    >straighten what's curved. Get out there!
    >
    >Rulz in effect:
    >////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    >
    > Dimension Max horizontal: 1200 pixels
    > Max vertical: 1000 pixels Note [1]
    >
    > Max file size (JPG): 500 kB
    > but please keep them under 300 kB where possible
    >
    > Example file names: Curve_Savageduck_1.JPG
    > Curve_Tony_Cooper_2.JPG
    > Curve_Martha_Coe_3.JPG
    >
    > Max photos per photog: 3
    >
    > Send your photos to: shootinphotos aht gmail daht com
    >
    >\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////////////////
    >
    >Rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
    >
    >NOTES:
    >[1] The Committee elected by unanimous decision that the max vertical
    > dimension of a photo may be 1000 pixels. Please verify your file
    > sizes before submitting photos. 500 kB or less (300 kB or less
    > preferred).
    >
    >[2] If your photo submissions includes narrative that you want
    > included with your photo, please add " / COMMENTS" to the
    > Subject line when submitting photos.
    >
    > Subject: On the Road photos / COMMENTS
    >
    >[3] Files that contain geotags will be posted to Panoramio under
    > "shootinphotos" as well as to the Pbase site. If you do not
    > wish this to occur either remove the tags or advise the
    > committee at the address below when submitting photos to the
    > SI, or by comment in the newsgroup(s).


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 21, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/21/2012 9:38 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > 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. 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.
    >
    > The two images not used were deliberate, and obvious, manipulations
    > using a mirror-imaging processing technique. There was no attempt to
    > "fool" anyone since the technique is so obvious. These are the two
    > images:
    >
    > https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvt57ajfuu9gcyc/Curves_Two Waves_ClearyC.jpg
    >
    > https://www.dropbox.com/s/g77zhkd78klw43i/Curves_Wave Owl Face_ClearyC.jpg
    >
    > In fairness and full disclosure, I Photoshopped the hell out of my
    > image "Dome". There was quite a bit of color enhancement done in the
    > processing and some blown-out reflections taken out. In
    > "Reflections", I used Photoshop to straighten up the horizontal and
    > vertical lines since the perspective was off because I was shooting up
    > on a scene higher than street level. There's some color enhancement
    > of the flowers in "Stained Glass" because the actual window's colors
    > were dark.
    >
    > As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    > Photoshop" rule. It wasn't repeated in the directions. I apologize
    > and am self-imposing a post-season ban and will not participate in any
    > bowl games.


    What constitutes "excessive Photoshopping?" Although the basic image for
    my Car & Boat was made in camera, I did a partial color reversal,
    applied selective sharpening, a spiral filter, and selective color
    enhancement.
    By way of comment Her use of the Image|transform tool was clever and
    effective. In the owl image she also appears to have don a partial color
    reversal. In the wave image, though I would like to see a surfer in the
    middle. I am not convinced that her application of PS was excessive. I
    believe both images, being photographically based, would qualify in the
    creative category of PSA.





    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 21, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:09:25 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/21/2012 9:38 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> 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. 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.
    >>
    >> The two images not used were deliberate, and obvious, manipulations
    >> using a mirror-imaging processing technique. There was no attempt to
    >> "fool" anyone since the technique is so obvious. These are the two
    >> images:
    >>
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvt57ajfuu9gcyc/Curves_Two Waves_ClearyC.jpg
    >>
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/g77zhkd78klw43i/Curves_Wave Owl Face_ClearyC.jpg
    >>
    >> In fairness and full disclosure, I Photoshopped the hell out of my
    >> image "Dome". There was quite a bit of color enhancement done in the
    >> processing and some blown-out reflections taken out. In
    >> "Reflections", I used Photoshop to straighten up the horizontal and
    >> vertical lines since the perspective was off because I was shooting up
    >> on a scene higher than street level. There's some color enhancement
    >> of the flowers in "Stained Glass" because the actual window's colors
    >> were dark.
    >>
    >> As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    >> Photoshop" rule. It wasn't repeated in the directions. I apologize
    >> and am self-imposing a post-season ban and will not participate in any
    >> bowl games.

    >
    >What constitutes "excessive Photoshopping?" Although the basic image for
    >my Car & Boat was made in camera, I did a partial color reversal,
    >applied selective sharpening, a spiral filter, and selective color
    >enhancement.
    >By way of comment Her use of the Image|transform tool was clever and
    >effective. In the owl image she also appears to have don a partial color
    >reversal. In the wave image, though I would like to see a surfer in the
    >middle. I am not convinced that her application of PS was excessive. I
    >believe both images, being photographically based, would qualify in the
    >creative category of PSA.


    Well, this is not exactly a National Geographic photo competition, but
    any rules by the SI dictator...uhhh...Moderator are fine with me. I
    don't want to see this rule on future SI's, though, since there's a
    place here for abstract stuff and that's manipulation.

    It was my fault for not paying attention.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 21, 2012
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    Tim Conway Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:09:25 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 11/21/2012 9:38 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 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. 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.
    >>>
    >>> The two images not used were deliberate, and obvious, manipulations
    >>> using a mirror-imaging processing technique. There was no attempt to
    >>> "fool" anyone since the technique is so obvious. These are the two
    >>> images:
    >>>
    >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvt57ajfuu9gcyc/Curves_Two Waves_ClearyC.jpg
    >>>
    >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/g77zhkd78klw43i/Curves_Wave Owl Face_ClearyC.jpg
    >>>
    >>> In fairness and full disclosure, I Photoshopped the hell out of my
    >>> image "Dome". There was quite a bit of color enhancement done in the
    >>> processing and some blown-out reflections taken out. In
    >>> "Reflections", I used Photoshop to straighten up the horizontal and
    >>> vertical lines since the perspective was off because I was shooting up
    >>> on a scene higher than street level. There's some color enhancement
    >>> of the flowers in "Stained Glass" because the actual window's colors
    >>> were dark.
    >>>
    >>> As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    >>> Photoshop" rule. It wasn't repeated in the directions. I apologize
    >>> and am self-imposing a post-season ban and will not participate in any
    >>> bowl games.

    >>
    >>What constitutes "excessive Photoshopping?" Although the basic image for
    >>my Car & Boat was made in camera, I did a partial color reversal,
    >>applied selective sharpening, a spiral filter, and selective color
    >>enhancement.
    >>By way of comment Her use of the Image|transform tool was clever and
    >>effective. In the owl image she also appears to have don a partial color
    >>reversal. In the wave image, though I would like to see a surfer in the
    >>middle. I am not convinced that her application of PS was excessive. I
    >>believe both images, being photographically based, would qualify in the
    >>creative category of PSA.

    >
    > Well, this is not exactly a National Geographic photo competition, but
    > any rules by the SI dictator...uhhh...Moderator are fine with me. I
    > don't want to see this rule on future SI's, though, since there's a
    > place here for abstract stuff and that's manipulation.
    >
    > It was my fault for not paying attention.
    >

    I had one rejected this time because of the excessive photoshop rule. I had
    a house grossly distorted with a filter in ArcSoft Photostudio 2.0 that got
    it rejected. Personally, I think the rule is outdated, now that almost
    every image has a degree of manipulation.
    Tim Conway, Nov 21, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:23:42 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:

    >I had to keep it fair, since Tony


    Not me. None of mine have been rejected. Some should have been
    because of poor choice of subject or focus, but none have.

    > had one rejected earlier due to
    >excessive photoshopping. The rule, for this mandate, was not to modify
    >the photo in post, except for the usual contrast, color, etc.


    Hey...I have no problems with the rejections. My daughter is curled
    up in a small ball weeping inconsolably, but don't let that bother
    you.

    >Future mandates will vary, but I needed to be consistent on this one.


    That's fine. Any rule is OK with me. I'd like to see the rule
    dropped only because abstracts should be OK.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 21, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/21/2012 5:18 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012.11.21 09:38 , tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >> As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    >> Photoshop" rule.

    >
    > The general rulz prohibit excessive photoshoping.
    >
    > I also recommended to someone else that they re-submit a wildly shopped
    > (though well done) image as not being compliant.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
    >
    > QUOTE
    > What's allowed? This is the hard part. Since we're focused on
    > pictures here, extensive digital manipulation would probably not be
    > looked upon with favor. Manipulations comparable to what those done
    > in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate.
    > /QUOTE
    >
    > This comes from the notion that we are generally photographers not
    > graphic artists.
    >


    I think that more intensive application of of graphic art is used in art
    photography, than in other types, such as documentary photography,

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 21, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    Noons Guest

    Re: Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

    On Nov 22, 9:51 am, PeterN <> wrote:

    > > QUOTE
    > >      What's allowed? This is the hard part. Since we're focused on
    > >      pictures here, extensive digital manipulation would probablynot be
    > >      looked upon with favor. Manipulations comparable to what those done
    > >      in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate.
    > > /QUOTE


    What constitutes "extensive" digital manipulation? Flipping half the
    image to end up with a mirror-like result is a single, simple
    operation, AFAIK. Hardly "extensive".

    Whereas messing around with colour balances, contrasts, sharpness,
    masking, etcetc, is a far more intensive and extensive manipulation.
    Which apparently most do.

    Ah well, what can I say? It's a digital image show, all bets are off
    when it comes to reality. Or photography...

    > I think that more intensive application of of graphic art is used in art
    > photography, than in other types, such as documentary photography,


    sorry, you lost me there...
    Noons, Nov 22, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

    On 11/22/2012 1:46 AM, Noons wrote:
    > On Nov 22, 9:51 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >>> QUOTE
    >>> What's allowed? This is the hard part. Since we're focused on
    >>> pictures here, extensive digital manipulation would probably not be
    >>> looked upon with favor. Manipulations comparable to what those done
    >>> in traditional photographic processes would be appropriate.
    >>> /QUOTE

    >
    > What constitutes "extensive" digital manipulation? Flipping half the
    > image to end up with a mirror-like result is a single, simple
    > operation, AFAIK. Hardly "extensive".
    >
    > Whereas messing around with colour balances, contrasts, sharpness,
    > masking, etcetc, is a far more intensive and extensive manipulation.
    > Which apparently most do.



    The attributions got screwed up.
    What happened to my response to the portion in quotes?


    >
    > Ah well, what can I say? It's a digital image show, all bets are off
    > when it comes to reality. Or photography...


    True. Unless the photography is for scientific purposes, or a National
    Geographic presentation.

    >
    >> I think that more intensive application of of graphic art is used in art
    >> photography, than in other types, such as documentary photography,

    >
    > sorry, you lost me there...
    >


    Simply saying that once we merge art, with photography, there is no
    limit of manipulations.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/22/2012 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-21 11:20:54 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:23:42 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I had to keep it fair, since Tony

    >>
    >> Not me. None of mine have been rejected. Some should have been
    >> because of poor choice of subject or focus, but none have.
    >>
    >>> had one rejected earlier due to
    >>> excessive photoshopping. The rule, for this mandate, was not to modify
    >>> the photo in post, except for the usual contrast, color, etc.

    >>
    >> Hey...I have no problems with the rejections. My daughter is curled
    >> up in a small ball weeping inconsolably, but don't let that bother
    >> you.
    >>
    >>> Future mandates will vary, but I needed to be consistent on this one.

    >>
    >> That's fine. Any rule is OK with me. I'd like to see the rule
    >> dropped only because abstracts should be OK.

    >
    > There is a major point to consider. The SI is trying to survive with one
    > foot in the wet darkroom past, but times have changed considerably since
    > the start of the SI in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Processing in the
    > digital darkroom has changed the nature of the game. There are those
    > here who are conservative in their photographic tastes, and there are
    > those who are prepared to explore using the tools which are available to
    > produce an image which might be more of an abstract expression than old
    > school photo journalism.
    >
    > We should be encouraging participation by permitting use of the
    > resources many of us have available now, not discouraging participation
    > because some individuals are using digital techniques not considered
    > "real photography". The first time most of us opened an image in any
    > processing application we had the thought "what can I do to change this?"
    > It is time to make the leap and change that SI rule and include any
    > processing restrictions in the conditions for any particular mandate.
    >


    Did you mean "include any processing restrictions?"
    Or, did you mean to say have no processing restrictions.


    > The current mandate for example is not one which encourages an abstract
    > presentation, but who can tell, we might just be excluding some
    > interesting work by living in the past.
    >
    > Consider that just making a B&W conversion using a plugin could well be
    > considered an "over manipulation" because we didn't just make a grey
    > scale desaturation.
    >
    > Individuals might not find this to their liking, but it is a reality in
    > digital photography today and even some of those photo conservatives are
    > adopting the idea of seeing what they can extract from their images.
    > There are some here who want to produce abstract photographic work using
    > tools available in the software available today. We shouldn't exclude them.
    >
    > Then remember, photographs are an artistic expression, to say that
    > photographs should have a certain appearance is one thing, but they are
    > "light drawings" and have been considered an art long before any of us
    > ever thought of picking up a camera.
    >



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Noons Guest

    Re: Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

    On Nov 23, 2:23 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    > >> I think that more intensive application of of graphic art is used in art
    > >> photography, than in other types, such as documentary photography,

    >
    > > sorry, you lost me there...

    >
    > Simply saying that once we merge art, with photography, there is no
    > limit of manipulations.
    >


    Still not quite there. Art by itself, is a noun.
    "graphic art" is just the word art used as an adjective, it's got
    nothing to do with pure art.
    Photography can also be art - or rather: artistic. There is the
    adjective again.
    It doesn't stop being photography. It doesn't start being graphic.
    If "graphic art" and "photography art" can both use the common
    adjective "art" it doesn't follow they are one and the same. Not any
    more than, say, performing art is the same as decorative art.
    As such, to claim to use "art"in photography is through graphic art
    manipulation is a loooog jump.
    Saying instead "... once we merge *graphic* art, with photography,
    there is ..." is, I guess, entirely valid.
    In that case I agree entirely. Or did I miss sumthin'?

    Happy T-day to all the folks Stateside, BTW.
    Noons, Nov 23, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

    On 11/22/2012 10:02 PM, Noons wrote:
    > On Nov 23, 2:23 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I think that more intensive application of of graphic art is used in art
    >>>> photography, than in other types, such as documentary photography,

    >>
    >>> sorry, you lost me there...

    >>
    >> Simply saying that once we merge art, with photography, there is no
    >> limit of manipulations.
    >>

    >
    > Still not quite there. Art by itself, is a noun.
    > "graphic art" is just the word art used as an adjective, it's got
    > nothing to do with pure art.
    > Photography can also be art - or rather: artistic. There is the
    > adjective again.
    > It doesn't stop being photography. It doesn't start being graphic.
    > If "graphic art" and "photography art" can both use the common
    > adjective "art" it doesn't follow they are one and the same. Not any
    > more than, say, performing art is the same as decorative art.
    > As such, to claim to use "art"in photography is through graphic art
    > manipulation is a loooog jump.
    > Saying instead "... once we merge *graphic* art, with photography,
    > there is ..." is, I guess, entirely valid.
    > In that case I agree entirely. Or did I miss sumthin'?
    >
    > Happy T-day to all the folks Stateside, BTW.
    >


    Whatever.
    i thought my meaning was clear.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/22/2012 10:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-22 18:57:47 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 11/22/2012 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-11-21 11:20:54 -0800, tony cooper <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:23:42 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I had to keep it fair, since Tony
    >>>>
    >>>> Not me. None of mine have been rejected. Some should have been
    >>>> because of poor choice of subject or focus, but none have.
    >>>>
    >>>>> had one rejected earlier due to
    >>>>> excessive photoshopping. The rule, for this mandate, was not to modify
    >>>>> the photo in post, except for the usual contrast, color, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey...I have no problems with the rejections. My daughter is curled
    >>>> up in a small ball weeping inconsolably, but don't let that bother
    >>>> you.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Future mandates will vary, but I needed to be consistent on this one.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's fine. Any rule is OK with me. I'd like to see the rule
    >>>> dropped only because abstracts should be OK.
    >>>
    >>> There is a major point to consider. The SI is trying to survive with one
    >>> foot in the wet darkroom past, but times have changed considerably since
    >>> the start of the SI in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Processing in the
    >>> digital darkroom has changed the nature of the game. There are those
    >>> here who are conservative in their photographic tastes, and there are
    >>> those who are prepared to explore using the tools which are available to
    >>> produce an image which might be more of an abstract expression than old
    >>> school photo journalism.
    >>>
    >>> We should be encouraging participation by permitting use of the
    >>> resources many of us have available now, not discouraging participation
    >>> because some individuals are using digital techniques not considered
    >>> "real photography". The first time most of us opened an image in any
    >>> processing application we had the thought "what can I do to change
    >>> this?"
    >>> It is time to make the leap and change that SI rule and include any
    >>> processing restrictions in the conditions for any particular mandate.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Did you mean "include any processing restrictions?"
    >> Or, did you mean to say have no processing restrictions.

    >
    > I probably had my thinking too clouded by turkey toxicity to express
    > myself clearly.
    >
    > What I intended to say was there should be no general digital darkroom
    > processing restrictions for the SI, unless they were specifically
    > stated/imposed for a particular mandate.
    >
    >
    >>> The current mandate for example is not one which encourages an abstract
    >>> presentation, but who can tell, we might just be excluding some
    >>> interesting work by living in the past.
    >>>
    >>> Consider that just making a B&W conversion using a plugin could well be
    >>> considered an "over manipulation" because we didn't just make a grey
    >>> scale desaturation.
    >>>
    >>> Individuals might not find this to their liking, but it is a reality in
    >>> digital photography today and even some of those photo conservatives are
    >>> adopting the idea of seeing what they can extract from their images.
    >>> There are some here who want to produce abstract photographic work using
    >>> tools available in the software available today. We shouldn't exclude
    >>> them.
    >>>
    >>> Then remember, photographs are an artistic expression, to say that
    >>> photographs should have a certain appearance is one thing, but they are
    >>> "light drawings" and have been considered an art long before any of us
    >>> ever thought of picking up a camera.

    >
    >


    Yup! I know all about turkey torpor. A good Madeira, with desert, adds
    to the effect

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/22/2012 10:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-22 19:26:14 -0800, PeterN <> said:


    <snip>

    >>
    >> Yup! I know all about turkey torpor. A good Madeira, with desert, adds
    >> to the effect

    >
    > Strange you should say that. Here am I looking at a medium dry, Justino,
    > "Rainwater" Vinho Madiera.
    >

    While writing my comments I was sipping a Cossart Gordon - 15 year old
    Medium Rich
    It's a fairly dry Madeira, and probably more suited to before dinner
    drinking. However, I prefer a dry wine. I tend to think of Rainwater as
    a cooking wine, though I used to drink that until I tried the medium
    Cossart. Since I cannot taste the difference between a 15 year old
    Madeira and an older one, why pay for the older vintage.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/22/2012 11:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-22 19:49:34 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 11/22/2012 10:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-11-22 19:26:14 -0800, PeterN <>
    >>> said:

    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup! I know all about turkey torpor. A good Madeira, with desert, adds
    >>>> to the effect
    >>>
    >>> Strange you should say that. Here am I looking at a medium dry, Justino,
    >>> "Rainwater" Vinho Madiera.
    >>>

    >> While writing my comments I was sipping a Cossart Gordon - 15 year old
    >> Medium Rich
    >> It's a fairly dry Madeira, and probably more suited to before dinner
    >> drinking. However, I prefer a dry wine. I tend to think of Rainwater
    >> as a cooking wine, though I used to drink that until I tried the
    >> medium Cossart. Since I cannot taste the difference between a 15 year
    >> old Madeira and an older one, why pay for the older vintage.

    >
    >
    > The Rainwater does just fine for sipping. However, when it comes to
    > Ports, which I prefer over Madeiras, there can be considerable
    > differences between a BevMo shelf selection and a 25 year old.
    >
    > I truly enjoy a glass of Port with a chunk of good ripe Stilton.
    >

    Assuming BevMo is some chain of distributors, of low priced wines, I
    agree, But if I cannot taste the difference, it doesn't matter to me.
    I also enjoy a glass of Pino Grigio, the kind that comes in boxes with a
    plastic bladder.
    However, reds are a different story.

    --
    Peter
    Plebian in my wine selection.
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    Rob Guest

    On 23/11/2012 1:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-21 11:20:54 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:23:42 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I had to keep it fair, since Tony

    >>
    >> Not me. None of mine have been rejected. Some should have been
    >> because of poor choice of subject or focus, but none have.
    >>
    >>> had one rejected earlier due to
    >>> excessive photoshopping. The rule, for this mandate, was not to modify
    >>> the photo in post, except for the usual contrast, color, etc.

    >>
    >> Hey...I have no problems with the rejections. My daughter is curled
    >> up in a small ball weeping inconsolably, but don't let that bother
    >> you.
    >>
    >>> Future mandates will vary, but I needed to be consistent on this one.

    >>
    >> That's fine. Any rule is OK with me. I'd like to see the rule
    >> dropped only because abstracts should be OK.

    >
    > There is a major point to consider. The SI is trying to survive with one
    > foot in the wet darkroom past, but times have changed considerably since
    > the start of the SI in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Processing in the
    > digital darkroom has changed the nature of the game. There are those
    > here who are conservative in their photographic tastes, and there are
    > those who are prepared to explore using the tools which are available to
    > produce an image which might be more of an abstract expression than old
    > school photo journalism.
    >
    > We should be encouraging participation by permitting use of the
    > resources many of us have available now, not discouraging participation
    > because some individuals are using digital techniques not considered
    > "real photography". The first time most of us opened an image in any
    > processing application we had the thought "what can I do to change this?"
    > It is time to make the leap and change that SI rule and include any
    > processing restrictions in the conditions for any particular mandate.
    >
    > The current mandate for example is not one which encourages an abstract
    > presentation, but who can tell, we might just be excluding some
    > interesting work by living in the past.
    >
    > Consider that just making a B&W conversion using a plugin could well be
    > considered an "over manipulation" because we didn't just make a grey
    > scale desaturation.
    >
    > Individuals might not find this to their liking, but it is a reality in
    > digital photography today and even some of those photo conservatives are
    > adopting the idea of seeing what they can extract from their images.
    > There are some here who want to produce abstract photographic work using
    > tools available in the software available today. We shouldn't exclude them.
    >
    > Then remember, photographs are an artistic expression, to say that
    > photographs should have a certain appearance is one thing, but they are
    > "light drawings" and have been considered an art long before any of us
    > ever thought of picking up a camera.
    >



    There have been many simple manipulations in the darkroom, like cloning
    in the moon, using masks, sandwiching negs, burning and dodging, etc
    Rob, Nov 23, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/23/2012 3:33 AM, Rob wrote:
    > On 23/11/2012 1:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-11-21 11:20:54 -0800, tony cooper <>
    >> said:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:23:42 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I had to keep it fair, since Tony
    >>>
    >>> Not me. None of mine have been rejected. Some should have been
    >>> because of poor choice of subject or focus, but none have.
    >>>
    >>>> had one rejected earlier due to
    >>>> excessive photoshopping. The rule, for this mandate, was not to modify
    >>>> the photo in post, except for the usual contrast, color, etc.
    >>>
    >>> Hey...I have no problems with the rejections. My daughter is curled
    >>> up in a small ball weeping inconsolably, but don't let that bother
    >>> you.
    >>>
    >>>> Future mandates will vary, but I needed to be consistent on this one.
    >>>
    >>> That's fine. Any rule is OK with me. I'd like to see the rule
    >>> dropped only because abstracts should be OK.

    >>
    >> There is a major point to consider. The SI is trying to survive with one
    >> foot in the wet darkroom past, but times have changed considerably since
    >> the start of the SI in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Processing in the
    >> digital darkroom has changed the nature of the game. There are those
    >> here who are conservative in their photographic tastes, and there are
    >> those who are prepared to explore using the tools which are available to
    >> produce an image which might be more of an abstract expression than old
    >> school photo journalism.
    >>
    >> We should be encouraging participation by permitting use of the
    >> resources many of us have available now, not discouraging participation
    >> because some individuals are using digital techniques not considered
    >> "real photography". The first time most of us opened an image in any
    >> processing application we had the thought "what can I do to change this?"
    >> It is time to make the leap and change that SI rule and include any
    >> processing restrictions in the conditions for any particular mandate.
    >>
    >> The current mandate for example is not one which encourages an abstract
    >> presentation, but who can tell, we might just be excluding some
    >> interesting work by living in the past.
    >>
    >> Consider that just making a B&W conversion using a plugin could well be
    >> considered an "over manipulation" because we didn't just make a grey
    >> scale desaturation.
    >>
    >> Individuals might not find this to their liking, but it is a reality in
    >> digital photography today and even some of those photo conservatives are
    >> adopting the idea of seeing what they can extract from their images.
    >> There are some here who want to produce abstract photographic work using
    >> tools available in the software available today. We shouldn't exclude
    >> them.
    >>
    >> Then remember, photographs are an artistic expression, to say that
    >> photographs should have a certain appearance is one thing, but they are
    >> "light drawings" and have been considered an art long before any of us
    >> ever thought of picking up a camera.
    >>

    >
    >
    > There have been many simple manipulations in the darkroom, like cloning
    > in the moon, using masks, sandwiching negs, burning and dodging, etc



    Yup! And I've done image simplification, posterization, Sketches in the
    darkroom, with chemicals, spot developing, and other techniques using
    Ray film, etc. were an image could take several days until I get it
    right, now it takes a few minutes, or hours.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/23/2012 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-22 20:51:32 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 11/22/2012 11:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-11-22 19:49:34 -0800, PeterN <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 11/22/2012 10:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2012-11-22 19:26:14 -0800, PeterN <>
    >>>>> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yup! I know all about turkey torpor. A good Madeira, with desert,
    >>>>>> adds
    >>>>>> to the effect
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Strange you should say that. Here am I looking at a medium dry,
    >>>>> Justino,
    >>>>> "Rainwater" Vinho Madiera.
    >>>>>
    >>>> While writing my comments I was sipping a Cossart Gordon - 15 year old
    >>>> Medium Rich
    >>>> It's a fairly dry Madeira, and probably more suited to before dinner
    >>>> drinking. However, I prefer a dry wine. I tend to think of Rainwater
    >>>> as a cooking wine, though I used to drink that until I tried the
    >>>> medium Cossart. Since I cannot taste the difference between a 15 year
    >>>> old Madeira and an older one, why pay for the older vintage.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The Rainwater does just fine for sipping. However, when it comes to
    >>> Ports, which I prefer over Madeiras, there can be considerable
    >>> differences between a BevMo shelf selection and a 25 year old.
    >>>
    >>> I truly enjoy a glass of Port with a chunk of good ripe Stilton.
    >>>

    >> Assuming BevMo is some chain of distributors, of low priced wines, I
    >> agree, But if I cannot taste the difference, it doesn't matter to me.
    >> I also enjoy a glass of Pino Grigio, the kind that comes in boxes with
    >> a plastic bladder.
    >> However, reds are a different story.

    >
    > More than low priced wines, they cover the full spectrum.
    > < http://www.bevmo.com/ >
    >



    IC.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:38:07 -0500, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    : <> 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.

    : The two images not used were deliberate, and obvious, manipulations
    : using a mirror-imaging processing technique. There was no attempt to
    : "fool" anyone since the technique is so obvious. These are the two
    : images:
    :
    : https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvt57ajfuu9gcyc/Curves_Two Waves_ClearyC.jpg
    :
    : https://www.dropbox.com/s/g77zhkd78klw43i/Curves_Wave Owl Face_ClearyC.jpg
    :
    : In fairness and full disclosure, I Photoshopped the hell out of my
    : image "Dome". There was quite a bit of color enhancement done in the
    : processing and some blown-out reflections taken out. In
    : "Reflections", I used Photoshop to straighten up the horizontal and
    : vertical lines since the perspective was off because I was shooting up
    : on a scene higher than street level. There's some color enhancement
    : of the flowers in "Stained Glass" because the actual window's colors
    : were dark.

    And I considerably mangled the colors in my picture of the Kresge Auditorium.
    I've photographed that building on several occasions already and thought my
    picture this time was boring without the enhancement.

    : As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    : Photoshop" rule. It wasn't repeated in the directions. I apologize
    : and am self-imposing a post-season ban and will not participate in any
    : bowl games.

    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. But all the
    regular contributors to the SI recognize excessive manipulation when they see
    it, so no real deception is involved. If we think the manipulation works,
    we'll say so. If we think it doesn't, we're hardly afraid to let our opinions
    be known. I'd be happy to see the rule get scrapped. It could be resurrected
    for specific mandates if there is a good reason to do so, but I think His
    Mightiness should use the power to impose it sparingly.

    That said, I have to say that I didn't particularly care for Cleary's
    reflected pictures. I like her original picture a lot, but the manipulated
    images pound away on the same theme without really adding anything new.
    They're OK, but not great. One of my favorite aphorisms is that good pictures
    are at their best when exhibited with other good pictures, not when exhibited
    with inferior pictures; and I think the principle applies here. So I guess I'd
    support The Master, had he expunged the pictures on the grounds of
    repetitiveness.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Nov 27, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:58:04 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:38:07 -0500, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    >: <> 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.

    >That said, I have to say that I didn't particularly care for Cleary's
    >reflected pictures. I like her original picture a lot, but the manipulated
    >images pound away on the same theme without really adding anything new.
    >They're OK, but not great. One of my favorite aphorisms is that good pictures
    >are at their best when exhibited with other good pictures, not when exhibited
    >with inferior pictures; and I think the principle applies here. So I guess I'd
    >support The Master, had he expunged the pictures on the grounds of
    >repetitiveness.


    I kinda liked one of them, but the "Owl" didn't do it for me.
    Whatever she sends me, though, I submit for her without comment.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 27, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Rob Guest

    On 27/11/2012 2:58 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:38:07 -0500, tony cooper <>
    > wrote:
    > : On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:30:59 -0500, SI Committee
    > : <> 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.
    >
    > : The two images not used were deliberate, and obvious, manipulations
    > : using a mirror-imaging processing technique. There was no attempt to
    > : "fool" anyone since the technique is so obvious. These are the two
    > : images:
    > :
    > : https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvt57ajfuu9gcyc/Curves_Two Waves_ClearyC.jpg
    > :
    > : https://www.dropbox.com/s/g77zhkd78klw43i/Curves_Wave Owl Face_ClearyC.jpg
    > :
    > : In fairness and full disclosure, I Photoshopped the hell out of my
    > : image "Dome". There was quite a bit of color enhancement done in the
    > : processing and some blown-out reflections taken out. In
    > : "Reflections", I used Photoshop to straighten up the horizontal and
    > : vertical lines since the perspective was off because I was shooting up
    > : on a scene higher than street level. There's some color enhancement
    > : of the flowers in "Stained Glass" because the actual window's colors
    > : were dark.
    >
    > And I considerably mangled the colors in my picture of the Kresge Auditorium.
    > I've photographed that building on several occasions already and thought my
    > picture this time was boring without the enhancement.
    >
    > : As I stated above, I must have missed reading the "No Excessive
    > : Photoshop" rule. It wasn't repeated in the directions. I apologize
    > : and am self-imposing a post-season ban and will not participate in any
    > : bowl games.
    >
    > 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. But all the
    > regular contributors to the SI recognize excessive manipulation when they see
    > it, so no real deception is involved. If we think the manipulation works,
    > we'll say so. If we think it doesn't, we're hardly afraid to let our opinions
    > be known. I'd be happy to see the rule get scrapped. It could be resurrected
    > for specific mandates if there is a good reason to do so, but I think His
    > Mightiness should use the power to impose it sparingly.
    >
    > That said, I have to say that I didn't particularly care for Cleary's
    > reflected pictures. I like her original picture a lot, but the manipulated
    > images pound away on the same theme without really adding anything new.
    > They're OK, but not great.


    > One of my favorite aphorisms is that good pictures
    > are at their best when exhibited with other good pictures, not when exhibited
    > with inferior pictures; and I think the principle applies here.


    This is so true.

    One thing I don't like is when an image has so much manipulation that it
    will not stand on its own merits.


    So I guess I'd
    > support The Master, had he expunged the pictures on the grounds of
    > repetitiveness.
    >
    > Bob
    >
    Rob, Nov 27, 2012
    #20
    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. licknlabia
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    licknlabia
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. Tabasco1
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    854
    Tabasco1
    Sep 4, 2004
  3. /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */

    MCSBNGP+++ Public apology on behalf of Frisbee(R) (with bonus self-deprecation)

    /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */, Jul 29, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    875
  4. Binh Tucker

    Re: Apology to Mr. Berserker

    Binh Tucker, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    545
    Keyser Soze
    Aug 13, 2003
  5. Reachinout

    APOLOGY

    Reachinout, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    530
    Harrison
    Oct 24, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page