[pure-silver] Re: Preprocessing
- From: afterswift@xxxxxxx
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:23:03 -0400
Hi Bob,
I think we should consider both film and digital photography in the same two
formats: Either no postprocessing; or postprocessing.
Much skill is involved in both formats. You mentioned snapshot photography as
though it is a no postprocessing type. In fact, it can be: news, sports, and
even art photographers have used no postprocessing. What they have used is
preprocessing or pre-exposure technique. That requires a lot of experience and
knowledge -- to be able to express everything meaningful in the scene
instantaneously -- like Cartier-Bresson -- or so it seems to someone watching
the photographer at work.
I don't think it's necessary to discuss postprocessing because both this list
and most of our digital confreres talk about it all the time and they need no
help from me.
Bob R
-----Original Message-----
From: nicolas3141@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 2:56 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Skies
I don't think we should belittle d***l photographers
for tackling techniques like this. While photoshop
makes it a little easier than some of the former film
techniques it does not greatly reduce the time
involved and it only slightly reduces the effort and
skill required. It still takes skill, patience,
previsualisation and dedication to good technique to
get it right. Perhaps the only thing that d***l
really does change is that it makes it somewhat
cheaper to learn by experimentation. I applaud anyone
who is taking their photography beyond the snapshot
stage.
But perhaps this is straying too far off topic -
apologies to any grumpy old farts who are offended.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--- BOB KISS <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I agree and, moreover, the example of
> the bridge (wikipedia) in
> evening light with the bridge lights on looked like
> a well timed (just the
> right amount of magic hour glow), well exposed,
> transparency. It used to
> take careful timing and good technique to achieve
> this. Basically Frotoshop
> releases you from the considerations of time and
> weather. It also seems to
> be much ado to achieve with digital cameras what
> film has always delivered
> in the hands of a relatively competent pro.
>
> CHEERS!
>
> BOB
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of mail1
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:01 PM
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Skies
>
>
>
> It's interesting that the narrow dynamic range of
> the digital sensor has
> sparked a renewal of extended range photo techniques
> to compensate for a
> problem that black and white photographers have
> managed through exposure and
> compensation development.
>
> Jonathan Ayers [mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Justin F. Knotzke
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:19 AM
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Skies
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14/05/07, Sauerwald Mark
> <mark_sauerwald@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You can also do a similar technique with a double
> exposure in camera, with a graded neutral density
> filter, stacked with the colour filter.
>
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattgarner/498016050/
>
>
>
> It's all the rage now on Flickr and other sites..
> Take multiple exposures
> and blend 'em in Photoshop.
>
>
>
> I believe there's some sort of plugin that does
> it for you..
>
>
>
> When I first saw these images appear on the Web,
> my first instinct was
> "damn, that's impressive" until I would flip through
> the rest of their
> portfolio and realized that not all the images
> looked like that.. Then I did
> some digging and realized it was a gimmick.
>
>
>
> Unless you are a photojournalist, or someone who
> prides in presenting
> images that have not been modified in anyway, I
> think the rule of thumb is
> to push it until the viewer knows something is
> fishy.
>
>
>
> I'm sure getting decent skies can be done
> through double exposures etc..
> That's fine.
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.picture-box.com/Resources/Barry-Thornton-1.jpg
>
>
>
> Is he using just a filter to hold in the sky and
> the ground ?
>
>
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Justin F. Knotzke
> jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shampoo.ca
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 -
> Release Date: 5/13/2007
> 12:17 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 -
> Release Date: 5/13/2007
> 12:17 PM
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.
Other related posts:
