| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2006 12:42:03 AM · #226 |
There's on "minor" technical point that I haven't seen yet.
What we see, and what the best camera in the world can capture, are 2 different things.
What we "see" has been run through a Photoshop of sorts, in our brains. There's no way a camera can capture detail in dark shadows as one looks out a bright window, yet we can see them. Unless one is going whacko to make an image an artistic endeavor, such as hue shifting and over/under saturating, Photoshop is our tool to close the gap between what we saw, what we think we saw, what the camera saw and recorded, and us trying to make some semblance of what we think we wanted to see vs. what we saw, or didn't saw - eh I mean see - See?
Now whur's my rake? |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 06:55:06 AM · #227 |
[quote=BradP] There's on "minor" technical point that I haven't seen yet.
What we see, and what the best camera in the world can capture, are 2 different things.
What we "see" has been run through a Photoshop of sorts, in our brains. There's no way a camera can capture detail in dark shadows as one looks out a bright window, yet we can see them. Unless one is going whacko to make an image an artistic endeavor, such as hue shifting and over/under saturating, Photoshop is our tool to close the gap between what we saw, what we think we saw, what the camera saw and recorded, and us trying to make some semblance of what we think we wanted to see vs. what we saw, or didn't saw - eh I mean see - See?
Si! |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 08:26:18 AM · #228 |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 02:28:25 PM · #229 |
Ahem!!!!! [/quote]
I think I know you!!!!! |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 02:59:58 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Jimmie, I think this link may very well be the answer to all your questions. |
Holy crap! Don't let Pedro click that!
...and Jimmy just PM'd me and asked for the address to ship the goats to. |
The hell with Pedro. Don't let me click it.
Uhhmmmm, what was I supposed to be taking before I clicked that such that it didn't make me crap myself?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:08:50 PM · #231 |
Jimmie,
I appreciate the occasional esoteric, bullshit thread for fun so thanks for that but in terms of photography I'm interested in your shot titled something like "sad eyes openness". The subject in that one appears to be the front of a US five-dollar bill superimposed over the back of same. Please share the creative way to accomplish that effect without having to resort to post processing cause it seems like it could be useful in several situations.
Oh yeah, what's your take on people printing one image and then using it within the composition of a second photo?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:28:46 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Jimmie,
I appreciate the occasional esoteric, bullshit thread for fun so thanks for that but in terms of photography I'm interested in your shot titled something like "sad eyes openness". The subject in that one appears to be the front of a US five-dollar bill superimposed over the back of same. Please share the creative way to accomplish that effect without having to resort to post processing cause it seems like it could be useful in several situations.
Oh yeah, what's your take on people printing one image and then using it within the composition of a second photo? |
Second question first...I love it when people do anything creative. I also like throwing red-meat questions out to the wolves just for a bit of fun.
Thanks for looking at that site. Sad Eyes... was created like this. I held a five dollar bill up to the window and shot a macro... the backside just bled through, kind of a "transparent collage." I have another like that from a WW 1 song book. I'll see if I can find it. Simple as that, just a bright light and something interesting on the backside that is either complimentary or ironic; not as easy as it sounds.
JIL (My initials spell JIL...Dad thought that was funny as HEL)
Message edited by author 2006-07-29 16:20:49. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 03:31:02 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
[quote=Art Roflmao] [quote=Megatherian] Jimmie, I think this link may very well be the answer to all your questions. |
funny stuff! Good thing I stopped drinking just before 10 am this morning. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 09:50:31 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by Jimmie:
I also like throwing red-meat questions out to the wolves just for a bit of fun. |
There are no wolves here Jimmie, just sheep in goats clothing;)
Message edited by author 2006-07-29 21:50:52. |
|
|
|
07/29/2006 10:08:53 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by Jimmie:
I also like throwing red-meat questions out to the wolves just for a bit of fun. |
There are no wolves here Jimmie, just sheep in goats clothing;) |
fdj895u9fgwyer9gfh3we8yurdhfy97wihrewu (something I invented... means, "Laughing so hard I cannot type.") |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 02:09:29 AM · #236 |
Usually the starter of these type of threads leaves early so well done for hanging around. By the way do you object to someone doing as much editing as is necessary to replicate what the eye saw. For example I'll use one of yours if that's OK as I know you know what you intended in your editing. This photo  has no detail showing on the dark side of the insect but I think if someone was looking at that insect they would have seen detail there. If you adjusted your aperture or shutter speed to show detail there I'm sure the wood would become over exposed and you would not have detail in your wood, even though if a person was looking at it they wolud have also seen detail in the wood. So, is it OK to adjust in PS here so as to show detail in the wood and the insect just as the eye would have seen it. I'm only after clarity here and not having a go in any way. Thanks. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 03:21:04 AM · #237 |
wow..I read about half this thread just out of mere curiosity...then I had to see what 'stores' my eyes beheld in the website you listed...didn't really look at any pictures...DID look at the diary...first lines my eyes zoomed to were....
"I covered the range very well. I entered digital special effects, historic landmarks, any subject, B/W any subject and blah-blah-blah others. I culled photos from the last 5 years and sent them off to competeâ€Â¦ yes, of course, I am nervous." Since I'm the proven, ignoramous of DPC, and I definetly don't fit the mold...I just don't see those PERSONAL reflections as those of a 'purist'. I did a picture...'Independence' for challenge with same name...why? because a chain on a goat is NOT independence...did I get reamed for quality of shot with no PP (cause I'm too new into this hobby to KNOW PP)???NOPE...what I DID get reamed for was being brutal to goat...LOL so i hadda email everyone and tell em that goat does all but eat from my table....notice her humourous expression? Does she LOOK starved, frick no...everyone fussed for cruelty..well guess what? LACK of independence IS cruelty..lol
I'm sure your a GREAT man, and very talented photographer, but good luck around these parts...cause "eye candy" sells at DPC...if ya can't PP well..your screwed...just ask PP uneducated folks such as myself ;-)
ANYWAY, back to original thing...when did you decide you don't like the digital effects and black and whites you did lots of????
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:06:54 AM · #238 |
I didn't edit here... this is straight from the camera. The wood in focus is the top of an old picnic table and the wood out of focus is the seat of the same table. The DOF was caused by the distance between the table top and the table seat. Main focus was on the bug. No editing.... just DOF.
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 11:19:40. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:14:12 AM · #239 |
ANYWAY, back to original thing...when did you decide you don't like the digital effects and black and whites you did lots of???? [/quote]
I decided I didn't like digital effects when photos heavily laden with them win all the "Purdy pitcher" contests. Those b/w I have shot. Well, actually, I have only seriously shot about 10 b/w and my photo library is now around 50,000 personal photos. So I do use b/w but at a very minimal rate. I shoot them just to enter a photo in a competition so I can get more name recognition. It is not a fave subject of mine. Many of my shots have caused people to think I used PP, but I don't, except to resize, crop and now and then sharpen if quality is lost. Thanks for checking in on that site. Go back and read the one about taking my old dog to the vet... more personal info in there than ya could find anywhere else.
Jim |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:51:28 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by msdoubletrouble:
what I DID get reamed for was being brutal to goat... |
What is it with this thread and goats? |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 12:38:40 PM · #241 |
What a silly thread. And I am suprised it is still alive. Having your own "style" of shooting is perfectly fine. But I believe when Jimboy started making remarks that using PP is untalented and unskillful is what got people fired up.
I can respect straigth from the camera shots but I find a lot of them boring. Then again I see photography as art so what do I know? ;) |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 01:40:10 PM · #242 |
lol Amber, wasn't aware thread had goat(S)..sorry. You know when I write just what others are okay with I'll stop being "me" and become "you" won't I???
Jim, thanks for not thinking me a jerk...cause I'm not, really TOO nice, and I will go back and read the "dog" entry. It was kinda fun in your one shot figuring out the cap bib that shows. The B&W barn shot is probaby my favorite shots in the site.
You gotta be a good sport to have given a "vent" thread and obviously since it's STILL going some folks like to spar 'wits' |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 02:56:08 PM · #243 |
okay..dang..two hours later...I read the "dog" entry along with SEVERAL others... here's my opinion (i know i know..we all anal)... your prose style is a combinationa Faulkner and Queen Latifa...pretty durn cool. But I truly wonder if folks feel about it like some do bout Finn...as in, "what heck did he just say???????" lol...country dialect..ya either speak/read it or ya lost.
I'm gonna have to plagerize this remark..LOL (as in STEAL it ;-)).....
"I am not mean spirited, I am direct. I am not crude, I am blunt"
next question...jim, jimmie, james...why do you and my father spell jimmie with "ie"? |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 03:20:30 PM · #244 |
next question...jim, jimmie, james...why do you and my father spell jimmie with "ie"? [/quote]
I spelled it "y" forever... until a few years ago when I met some really good friends from England and another from Norther Ireland. For some reason the Brits and Mics write it "ie"... I thought it pretty cool and adopted it.
I love the Faulkner comparison.... :))) |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 04:56:42 PM · #245 |
Yet another Neo-Luddite thread...
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 05:04:33 PM · #246 |
thanks spaz...you hit my "learned something new today" nail right on the head ;-)...I surely had to look THAT terminology up...
Luddite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Luddites were a social movement of English workers in the early 1800s who protested — often by destroying textile machines — against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution that they felt threatened their jobs. The movement, which began in 1811, was named after a probably mythical leader, Ned Ludd. For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1813 that resulted in many death penalties and transportations (deportment to a penal colony).
The English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.
oh geez..does that mean there will be a "luddite" challenge?oh lawdddddddddd
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 05:13:04 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yet another Neo-Luddite thread... |
Yet another psuedo-intellectual comment.
(And I didn't have to look "Luddite" up. As a matter of fact, Tom Servo in an MST3K episode says, "Ahhhhh....he's a Luddite." as the protagonist beats a spaceship control panel with an empty revolver.)
You may have to look up MST3K
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 17:22:10. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 05:17:41 PM · #248 |
oh geez..does that mean there will be a "luddite" challenge?oh lawdddddddddd [/quote]
and to set the record straight even one more time... I am not against tech.... I am against "Horses with antlers" mentality. (Not you, of course... but you may be the only one who gets the reference.) |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 05:36:27 PM · #249 |
Go Cubbies.
Just so we are clear. I do both PS stuff, and forethought of image.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 05:38:44 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Go Cubbies.
Just so we are clear. I do both PS stuff, and forethought of image. |
lol---yeah, GO CUBBIES!!! Sweep no. 2 of the Cards... yeeee---HA!!!
And good for you! Do what ever works in your photo life. |
|
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: 08/24/2025 06:57:16 AM EDT.
