| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2005 11:50:44 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
that true Pug-h, but then how many people had a darkroom in their home or easily accessible somewhere? Only minor alterations could be done with those compared to todays editing software. And think of how many people had camera's back then compared to the accessibility digital cameras brought to most people. I'm sure if you ask people, many of them did not own a 35mm camera before their current digital one, and even less would have edited their photos in a darkroom. |
Minor, I use to retouch a neg, then hand paint the print to remove an object. It's just easier to do it digitally.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:27:10 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
that true Pug-h, but then how many people had a darkroom in their home or easily accessible somewhere? Only minor alterations could be done with those compared to todays editing software. And think of how many people had camera's back then compared to the accessibility digital cameras brought to most people. I'm sure if you ask people, many of them did not own a 35mm camera before their current digital one, and even less would have edited their photos in a darkroom. |
And 'back then', most people had photo albums or boxes full of photos that no one except for other family members would have any interest at all in looking at. :-) |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:53:34 AM · #28 |
| methos, by minor I meant the amount of options you would have at your disposal. Otherwise the actual editing time and the need for high accuracy for every print (can't undo) is greatly reduced with digital. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:08:14 AM · #29 |
one cannot even dare start compare (confused, anyone? :)) dodging and burning in the darkroom with the stuff that can be done to an image in photoshop.
most of the art i've seen on this site is absolutely incredible. but i agree with prietenu: sometimes, editing is taken way too far. i have a friend who will take a random picture of anything and edit it to such a degree that it can compete with the pictures on this site(yes, i do think very highly of DPChallenge.com). i honestly don't believe he has photographic talent...he has photoshoping talent
i personally chose film over digital any day, tho i aknowledge the versatility and support offered by digital, and to me there is a difference between photography and digital art...
and prietenu, enough people owned a 35mm, but few might have started with a pin hole camera amde out of cardboard :D
and please, if anyone is accepting to let me watch them work (on the field, not in photoshop), i'll be more than happy to go. (i live in Toronto btw)
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 01:10:18. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:21:15 AM · #30 |
That over processed look your referring to would be the default output of the Canon dslr's :)
/me ducks and hides
bazz. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:09:20 PM · #31 |
I completely disagree!! Looking at the ribbon winners this week I see no editing beyond recognition, but pure photographic skills.
I specially love this one:
As it tells a wonderful story in a very pure and simple photographic image.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:18:47 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by anda:
one cannot even dare start compare (confused, anyone? :)) dodging and burning in the darkroom with the stuff that can be done to an image in photoshop.
|
Actually I can. Like I stated before, I cloned out stuff all the time in the dark room. Obviously it takes a lot more talent to do it in a darkroom than on a computer. And the results on a computer are WAY more consistant for each print. But most of the images that win an open challenge are less edited than what you can do in a darkroom.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:23:22 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by prietenu:
methos, by minor I meant the amount of options you would have at your disposal. Otherwise the actual editing time and the need for high accuracy for every print (can't undo) is greatly reduced with digital. |
The only thing digital changes is how easily repeatable and undo-able changes are. For an illustrative example, look at the non-photoshop, all photographic work of Jerry Uelsmann |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:33:13 PM · #34 |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:38:17 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
For an illustrative example, look at the non-photoshop, all photographic work of Jerry Uelsmann |
Wow!! Amazing work!!!
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 03:13:53 AM · #36 |
that only proves my point that photoshopic skill is not NECESSARILY photographic skill. from what i understood, no one questioned the tallent of the people who shoot digital (or did you, people?). this whole thread was about not letting digital editing go too far. there have been discussions before about how very dissapointed some people were when they saw the original of a picture they had voted 10 on.
so...there's no one who would take the burden of having an apprentice :( |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:58:09 PM EDT.
