Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

Non - Photographic posts


Scotty 16 64 1 Scotland
10 Apr 2005 3:21PM
I'd actually like to experience a dark room, as I can then have a better understanding of composition and tones, especially if I knew what it is going to take to bring these out.

Space in the flat and work schedules prevent this :o(
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
10 Apr 2005 3:28PM
See if the local college is doing a B/W photography course. I found one at Cirencester College that was good. It was fun and challenging, but boy did it make me appreciate Photoshop and a PC. Also it was less than 100 for 3 months worth. Chemicals provided, but you have to bring your own film, paper and 35mm SLR.
UserRemoved 17 4.2k
10 Apr 2005 3:32PM
I took my 12 year old nephew to the cinema tonight (Sahara - excellent - loved every bit of it).

On the way home he asked if he could come up and help me with the developing again. (I took him out about 3 or 4 years ago and let him shoot his own B+W and we went home and did the whole thing from film dev to final print)

Felt bad telling him I hadnt done that in years.

I dont think the chemicals would still be fresh Wink

I've nearly a full litre bottle of selenium toner in the cupboard along with god knows what else!
sabretalon 17 1.9k United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 1:33AM
Things to think about!

A scanner technically could be classed as a digital camera and I have seen several images that have been created via a scanner that would blow your mind. Infact there was someone who scanned in cut flowers and tidied them up in photoshop, looked great.

Also, some seem to mix up manipulation and processing/development. Manipulation to me is about adding or removing items from an image to make the image different to what was actually captured. Processing is about tidying up your image, colour corrections, removing dust marks, adjust curves etc.. i.e not really changing the physical image other then removing scratches and dust.

In the end where do you actually put a stop to manipulation? All my images are manipulated, since the paper went in the printer at one end blank then when it came out it had a picture on it, that is manipulated, is it not? I know photographers that spent days in a darkroom, manipulating their images to suit their "art" yet not many here talks about how images were manipulated in the darkroom.

I agree to a certain degree, that the "art" of the camera is disappearing. People are now just shooting images and then improving them on the computer, rather than spending time thinking of what they are shooting and why and in most cases you find that people do not have a clear idea as to what they want their image to look like, before they sit behind the computer.

What you will find though, most people are in a phase of trying things out. If you look at the more established digital photographers on here, especially the ones who earn their living from photography, I bet you will find that the images they create are more or less the same as what they created on film. The only difference is, they spend less time developing their prints (with less smelly chemicals) and they do not spend hours on one image to make it right, they spent their time getting it right in camera first and then tweaked it in photoshop prior to print. Which I guess, is what you feel should be classed as photography?
ljesmith 16 1.1k United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 2:07AM
I don't think the issue is about manipulation, I think it's more about the ability to take a photograph in the first place. It is one of the most underrated skills on this site, the ability to frame and expose an image properly "in camera", not take a picture and then rely on the abilities of the computer to make it good.
I still spend as much time on photoshop as I did in the darkroom, but I very rarely crop my images or do any obvious manipulation, instead the time is spent trying to extract the details and tones that I want and photoshop is a lot better at doing this than an enlarger.
lobsterboy Plus
17 14.9k 13 United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 2:55AM

Quote:One recent upload went on about using gaussian blur to blur the background (not getting at anyone) and feathering and blending and healing tool. Why not just stick it to f2.8 or f4 or your lowest f number?

Not always possible - I would have loved to have done that on my S602 but it was virtually impossible to acheve a shallow dof in camera.
UserRemoved 17 4.2k
11 Apr 2005 3:42AM

Quote:Not always possible - I would have loved to have done that on my S602 but it was virtually impossible to acheve a shallow dof in camera.


Does the 602 not have f2.8 and an optical zoom?

I've also trained people in its use using the macro function to blow the background out.
lobsterboy Plus
17 14.9k 13 United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 3:47AM

Quote:I've also trained people in its use using the macro function to blow the background out.


Thats about the only way to do it. 2.8 and zoom never seemed to produce a satisfactory result in my experience.
Chris
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 3:59AM
Luke, after a time you come to realise that to get the best quality etc it is best to get things correct in the camera, as photoshop wizzardy can save shots but its never as good as getting it correct first.
ljesmith 16 1.1k United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 4:05AM
I thought that was what I said?? Smile
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 4:15AM
I know I was agreeing with you. Grin
ljesmith 16 1.1k United Kingdom
11 Apr 2005 4:22AM
I thought you were, but that's the trouble with text, theres no tone.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.