Re: weird posts No, *I* said '(nearly) all pro photogs', as in 'nearly all pro photogs
scan and enhance their images in Photoshop' Ignoring for a minute the
source of the image (film or digital), the afterwork on the negative or
tranny (used to be called retouching, remember?) is now handled by
scanning and producing a digital file; and printing is done digitally,
whether by Frontier, Lambda, or inkjet. (As far as I can remember, my
5x4 Durst Laborator Dichroic Head enlarger didn't have anywhere to input
a digital image, so I couldn't print it optically).
The point is, film or digital afterwork, including cloning, color
replacement, and a host of other techniques available in Photoshop is
used by everybody, including 'nearly all pro photogs', not just Bret.
Why hang your biases just on him?
If you meant to say 'by optical printing methods' then you clearly
deserve the epithet 'Luddite'. If you meant - but couldn't bring
yourself to say - 'by scanning into Photoshop and printing digitally'
then you're right. Up to a point. MF, and ultimately LF, are being
challenged by 12 and 16 megapixel 35mm-style dslrs, and by scanning
backs for MF cameras. How long before a scanning back is made for 5x4
cameras? Scan rates are getting faster as better electronics are
developed.
No, it's because unlike resolution-driven photogs, ordinary people don't
leave nose smears on large prints, they view from a distance where they
can take in the picture, as distinct from taking in the grain and
resolution and ignoring the picture. When you read a book, do you study
the typeface for irregularities, for jaggies on 'S's and 'O's, or how
round the full stop is? No, those things are only the carriers of the
message. The message is in what they convey, and the same with an
image, photograph, call it what you like. Grain, resolution, noise,
whatever, only detract from a picture if they are obvious.
But, I'll qualify what I said about 5x4 images. At very large sizes,
say a metre or more on the short side, 5x4 is very realistic; but
smaller, say 20x16, they look to me overdone, apparently sharper than in
real life, unrealistic. Now before you jump all over me for that,
consider what a lot of film users say about digital prints being
'plasticky', 'too smooth', etc. Just two sides of the same coin.
Keep your snide, smartass remarks to yourself. If you want lemmings,
look around you among your fellow film luddites. I have converted to
digital, for reasons cited many times in this group. Scott and Bret
have, for their own reasons, come to the same conclusion.
Bret's gonna love that! Also, you've just displayed a complete
ignorance of Photoshop, and proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are
as biased as hell against digital photography. Your example just above
applies equally to any scanned film image and is not the exclusive
domain of digital cameras. The clone tool, FYI, is not the tool to
change colors. The clone tool *cannot* change colors. The clone tool
duplicates selected parts of an image to another part of the image.
Changing the color of selected parts of an image requires using the
lassoo/magnetic lassoo tool and maybe the Grow command to outline the
selected area; then there are several ways to change the color within
that area. But then, you've never used Photoshop, have you? Because
that would mean having to admit you've sullied your hands with a digital
image.
You're getting perilously close to a diagnosis of 'digital paranoia'
there.
No, it doesn't. It says that *I* have yet to see any images from a film
camera of any type to equal what he is doing with his 20D - in this
group. Yes, I know I didn't say 'in this group', but I would have
thought that since this entire thread is being conducted in this group,
and Bret's images are posted to this group, that the context would
prevail.
In the light of this reply, shouldn't you take some of your own advice?
Bottom line: I don't care whether you take your photographs on
sensitized toilet paper, what riles me is the anti attitude displayed by
film lemmings to digital photography and photogs, amply illustrated by
some of the things you've said in this thread. We all choose our ways
of doing things, and we enjoy our results. You do your thing, and don't
get paranoid about what others do or say. We'll all get along better
that way.
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
ColinD
|
|
