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

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

  1. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > 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.



    Tell that to nospam.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 27, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    >
    >Tell that to nospam.


    He will think she and her husband are luddites and hate Apple.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 27, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >> I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only legitimate
    >> reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance of deception.

    >
    >The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
    >editing.
    >
    >Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
    >tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
    >essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
    >photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.


    In my opinion, changing an image substantially in such a way that
    appears to be a normal capture is wrong for this group. Minor cleaning
    up, even if cloning out - say - a trash barrel should not be
    considered a problem. Let's not, in "Street", photograph a person
    walking down the sidewalk and add an AK-47 in his hands and call it an
    image of a terrorist, though.

    However, some like abstract output. I don't see a problem with this
    done in Photograph or a similar program. There's no attempt to pass
    this off as a normal capture.

    I think the key is that if there's no intent to deceive, it's OK.

    However, I'll go along with whatever everyone else wants.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 27, 2012
    #23
  4. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/27/2012 2:48 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Tell that to nospam.

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




    He probably should take this test:
    <http://www.netaddiction.com/index.php?option=com_bfquiz&view=onepage&catid=46&Itemid=106>

    To see if he suffers from:

    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction_disorder>

    And needs treatment.
    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 27, 2012
    #24
  5. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/27/2012 6:02 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only legitimate
    >>> reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance of deception.

    >>
    >> The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
    >> editing.
    >>
    >> Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
    >> tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
    >> essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
    >> photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.

    >
    > In my opinion, changing an image substantially in such a way that
    > appears to be a normal capture is wrong for this group. Minor cleaning
    > up, even if cloning out - say - a trash barrel should not be
    > considered a problem. Let's not, in "Street", photograph a person
    > walking down the sidewalk and add an AK-47 in his hands and call it an
    > image of a terrorist, though.
    >
    > However, some like abstract output. I don't see a problem with this
    > done in Photograph or a similar program. There's no attempt to pass
    > this off as a normal capture.


    Fast Friday I went to a local track. There were not as many characters
    as I had hoped. I thought I saw enough for the SI, but after looking at
    the images, I saw they didn't convey the mood I was looking for.

    >
    > I think the key is that if there's no intent to deceive, it's OK.
    >
    > However, I'll go along with whatever everyone else wants.





    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 27, 2012
    #25
  6. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : > I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only
    : > legitimate reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance
    : > of deception.
    :
    : The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
    : editing.

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

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

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 28, 2012
    #26
  7. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

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

    "Photograph"?? Can you please clarify that, Dr Freud?

    : I think the key is that if there's no intent to deceive, it's OK.

    Right. So can we ignore your first paragraph if the AK-47 is an obvious joke?

    : However, I'll go along with whatever everyone else wants.

    Me too, I guess. But I sense that there may effectively be no agreement on
    what everyone else wants. :^|

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 28, 2012
    #27
  8. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    : > 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.
    :
    : Tell that to nospam.

    There's a serious point there, I think. Most(?) people, often including me,
    deplore Usenet as a useless time sink. But the plain truth is that I've
    learned as much about photography from reading these newsgroups as from all
    other sources put together.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 28, 2012
    #28
  9. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/27/2012 9:15 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN <>
    > wrote:
    > : On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > : > 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.
    > :
    > : Tell that to nospam.
    >
    > There's a serious point there, I think. Most(?) people, often including me,
    > deplore Usenet as a useless time sink. But the plain truth is that I've
    > learned as much about photography from reading these newsgroups as from all
    > other sources put together.


    Indeed there is a serious point. I wouldn't go as far as you, but I have
    also learned a lot about photography from these groups. I also learned
    from other sources: My camera club, workshops, and my severest critic,
    my daughter.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 28, 2012
    #29
  10. tony cooper

    nick c Guest

    On 11/27/2012 5:59 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    > : On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
    > :
    > : > I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only
    > : > legitimate reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance
    > : > of deception.
    > :
    > : The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
    > : editing.
    >
    > There isn't any difference. The picture is taken by a computer (politely
    > referred to as a "digital camera") and edited with another computer. What
    > difference does it make which is which?
    >
    > : Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
    > : tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
    > : essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
    > : photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.
    >
    > There are no "darkroom photographers", just as there are no longer any glass
    > plates. Can we please stop living in the past?
    >
    > Bob
    >


    If one were to purposely forget past photographic processing practices,
    using the progression to further enhance new practices, the progression
    of photography (be it craft or art form) will become stagnant.

    What has been learned in the past becomes the stepping stones to the
    gaining of knowledge. Forget what took years to learn and mediocrity
    will exemplify the product of your work.
     
    nick c, Nov 28, 2012
    #30
  11. tony cooper

    otter Guest

    Re: Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Of course, the peasants are free to vote with their feet if they don't
    like it.
     
    otter, Nov 28, 2012
    #31
  12. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

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

    It will? Why?

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

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

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 28, 2012
    #32
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:43:40 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/27/2012 2:48 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Tell that to nospam.

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

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


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

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






    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 28, 2012
    #33
  14. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:10:03 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

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


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

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

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


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 28, 2012
    #34
  15. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:44:54 -0500, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 11/27/2012 9:15 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:22:32 -0500, PeterN <>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On 11/26/2012 11:37 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    : > : > 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.
    : > :
    : > : Tell that to nospam.
    : >
    : > There's a serious point there, I think. Most(?) people, often including me,
    : > deplore Usenet as a useless time sink. But the plain truth is that I've
    : > learned as much about photography from reading these newsgroups as from all
    : > other sources put together.
    :
    : Indeed there is a serious point. I wouldn't go as far as you, but I have
    : also learned a lot about photography from these groups. I also learned
    : from other sources: My camera club, workshops, and my severest critic,
    : my daughter.

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 28, 2012
    #35
  16. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

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

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 28, 2012
    #36
  17. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:53:34 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

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


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


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 28, 2012
    #37
  18. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/27/2012 10:46 PM, Robert Coe wrote:


    <snip>

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


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



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 28, 2012
    #38
  19. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

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

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

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


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

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 28, 2012
    #39
  20. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    That's a bit harsh.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 28, 2012
    #40
    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:
    437
    licknlabia
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. Tabasco1
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    890
    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:
    911
  4. Binh Tucker

    Re: Apology to Mr. Berserker

    Binh Tucker, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    562
    Keyser Soze
    Aug 13, 2003
  5. Reachinout

    APOLOGY

    Reachinout, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    551
    Harrison
    Oct 24, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page