DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Not pickin' on anyone, but I have a question...
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 191, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/26/2006 01:43:07 PM · #76
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I've used Photoshop since it was called "Ye Olde Photo Shoppe" ;-)


Me too. Heck, back in my day we had to make our own mice out of flint and turkey feathers.

IMO a photo without Photoshop is a diamond in the rough: maybe pretty in its own right, but nowhere near its full potential.
 09/26/2006 01:48:28 PM · #77
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I've used Photoshop since it was called "Ye Olde Photo Shoppe" ;-)


Me too. Heck, back in my day we had to make our own mice out of flint and turkey feathers.

IMO a photo without Photoshop is a diamond in the rough: maybe pretty in its own right, but nowhere near its full potential.

Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?

For me, the key to using the camera "correctly" is to capture the pixels which will need the simplest, least radical post-processing to achieve the final image, not to be able to print a final image off the card.
 09/26/2006 01:53:49 PM · #78
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?


I started with PS 1.0. By the time version 2.0 came out, I was retouching high-resolution posters on a wicked-fast 40Mhz computer. ;-)
 09/26/2006 01:58:02 PM · #79
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?


I started with PS 1.0. By the time version 2.0 came out, I was retouching high-resolution posters on a wicked-fast 40Mhz computer. ;-)


I always assumed these things (like PS) start at 4 or 5 or so.
 09/26/2006 02:07:00 PM · #80
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?


I started with PS 1.0. By the time version 2.0 came out, I was retouching high-resolution posters on a wicked-fast 40Mhz computer. ;-)

I had the balky Mac IIfx hooked up to a crazy transparency scanner -- I think that it might have only been 30MHz. I remember that the answer to the question "how do you spell coffee break?" was "UnSharp Mask."
 09/26/2006 02:07:42 PM · #81
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?


I started with PS 1.0. By the time version 2.0 came out, I was retouching high-resolution posters on a wicked-fast 40Mhz computer. ;-)


I always assumed these things (like PS) start at 4 or 5 or so.


lol
 09/26/2006 02:08:35 PM · #82
Originally posted by ursula:
I always assumed these things (like PS) start at 4 or 5 or so.

I think version 4 was the first major upgrade, where they introduced Layers (or was it adjustment layers?).

Actually, there's been an interesting trend towards truth-in-version labeling of software, where you'll get things like version 0.9.a

Message edited by author 2006-09-26 14:10:42.
 09/26/2006 02:16:05 PM · #83
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?


I started with PS 1.0. By the time version 2.0 came out, I was retouching high-resolution posters on a wicked-fast 40Mhz computer. ;-)


I always assumed these things (like PS) start at 4 or 5 or so.


Aldus (aquired by Adobe) had a product called Photostyler. Photostyler 1.1 supported JPG. It was the best photo editing software for Windows when Photoshop was available only on the Mac. Photoshop 2.5 was the first version available for Windows. I thought Photoshop version 3 was the first to support layers, but I might be wrong.
 09/26/2006 02:18:50 PM · #84
PhotoShop started as a Mac product? Cool. Just like FileMaker.
 09/26/2006 02:24:28 PM · #85
Originally posted by ursula:
PhotoShop started as a Mac product? Cool. Just like FileMaker.

The key was Adobe and Apple collaborating on the PostScript Language and developing the LaserWriter -- almost all modern imaging/printing/reproduction processes derive from that.
 09/26/2006 02:25:56 PM · #86
Originally posted by ursula:
PhotoShop started as a Mac product? Cool. Just like FileMaker.


...and PageMaker, Illustrator, FreeHand, Painter, Bryce...

As Paul hinted, Postscript itself was Mac-first. So was color management. I'm pretty sure desktop mice, the GUI, dual monitors, wireless networking, Firewire (and possibly USB) were all Macintosh features later adopted for PCs.

Message edited by author 2006-09-26 14:31:13.
 09/26/2006 02:27:14 PM · #87
So that probably explains (at least in part) why Apples and image processing go together so well. Interesting.
 09/26/2006 02:28:17 PM · #88
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
PhotoShop started as a Mac product? Cool. Just like FileMaker.

The key was Adobe and Apple collaborating on the PostScript Language and developing the LaserWriter -- almost all modern imaging/printing/reproduction processes derive from that.


OK, I'm lost - what does this PostScript language do? And LaserWriter? (save me the googling).
 09/26/2006 02:29:10 PM · #89
Don't forget Premiere for video editing, and QuickTime for A/V files ...

FWIW early versions of AOL leaned towards the Mac version as well ... : )

I'll have to explain how laser printers and stuff work later ... : (

Message edited by author 2006-09-26 14:30:40.
 09/26/2006 02:34:04 PM · #90
Originally posted by ursula:
OK, I'm lost - what does this PostScript language do? And LaserWriter? (save me the googling).


PostScript is a language / file format (also known as EPS). It's used to describe images as pixels (Photoshop EPS) or lines (Illustrator EPS). The Apple LaserWriter was the first printer to use PostScript.
 09/26/2006 02:35:49 PM · #91
Ah, OK. Thanks guys!
 09/26/2006 02:52:19 PM · #92
Members, feel free to join in, this isn't a SC only discussion. :P
 09/26/2006 02:55:30 PM · #93
In fact, Apple wanted to sue Microsoft for stealing mouse technology, but then they remembered that Apple had stolen it from Hewlett Packard (who gave it away because they didn't think it was worth anything... snicker).
 09/26/2006 03:06:20 PM · #94
one of these threads again...there are so many aha, but they always end up being informational, so its cool
 09/26/2006 04:23:52 PM · #95
Originally posted by xianart:
both post processing and stragiht form the camera have their place. straight from the camera is a bit bravura, showing off - i don't crop, dodge, burn - i get it right when i click the shutter.

the other approach is the 'i get it right whenn i click the shutter, but then i make it better.'

i think it's important to hve basic challenges, as they force us to get it right in the camera. that's a vital skill to have. but disallowing post processing would cancel any other artisitic flair. photography is an art. i have a bachelor of fine arts in photography.

both are important. you can't have one without the other. let's stop griping, eh?


Getting it "right" straight out of the camera is "showing off"? I have to disagree. It's just as hard to do that as to complete a vision in photoshop.. or, more accurately, it depends on the image you want as to which one would be more difficult.

Also.. who's the one to say what is "right"? IMO, the photographer, that is all.
(unless you belong to that group of people called "advertising/product" photographers, in which case Pete help you all ;P)

As jmsetzler noted.. there is just too large a rift between the two camps right now, and it's unfortunate. We have to stop this thinking that "one is better than the other", and just start taking individual photographs on their own merit as they relate to us as individual viewers and leave it at that.

I've seen a thousand photos win ribbons on this site that I've despised.. and I've seen a thousand photos win ribbons on this site that I've absolutely loved.. and many that I've hated, and loved, have fallen into both categories.. hugely processed, and practically not.
 09/26/2006 04:52:35 PM · #96
The problem is that Photography is dying: it is being replaced by other forms of arts: PhotoDesign, PhotoPainting, PhotoDrama, PhotoLiterature, etc. At this rate, the art of photography, as practiced by the classics we all rever, will be gone. To me photography is the art of the stopped moment.

Everybody is free to practice any form of visual art. Just don't call the result of a digitally manipulated beyond recognition image a *photograph*, and I will take it seriously!
 09/26/2006 04:53:51 PM · #97
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Anybody use anything earlier than PS 2.0?


I started with PS 1.0. By the time version 2.0 came out, I was retouching high-resolution posters on a wicked-fast 40Mhz computer. ;-)


I learned PS 1.5 on an Amiga with a hard drive split for Mac stuff and 3D rendering animations stuff. Had to use the ol' Mac classic to print out anything on a Postscript laser printer..... b/w only. You had to send your stuff to a Pro Service Bueareu (BAD bAD BAD spelling) to get anything out in color or camera ready.

very last day of class thye brought in PS 2.0 released only a few weeks before so the teacher could show us the new things in PS! Also learned QuarkXPress 1.2 on the same split HD Amiga computer.... where the Postcript laser printer actually came in handy!
 09/26/2006 04:57:28 PM · #98
Originally posted by Artyste:
...Getting it "right" straight out of the camera is "showing off"? I have to disagree...


hey, glenn - you agreed with me. just a different way.

i used to be a 'purist' photographer. if it wasn't right in the camera, i didn't print it. it is a bit bravura-y. proving you can get it right every time. is that a bad thing? i don't think so. i apologise if my terminology implied otherwise.

and, yes,it is the photographer who decides what's right or not. that's what i meant by 'right'.

i just had a disappointed commenter realise that my holga were 'not photographs' because the effects on them are generated by an adobe action, rather than in camera. this is what i wrote in the comment section of that image:

'while this is a digital image, the effects achieved through post processing, this image could be a chieved quite easily in a darkroom. one would, of course, start with a grainy film (tri-x was always my choice). the distortion could be achieved by tilting the easel, the light exposure by selective butrning of the corners, and the sabatieed edges by flicking the darkroom lihgts on, again, whilst protecting the areas needed.

that is, if you loved the holga and didn't have one.

i love the holga, i don't have one. i no longer have a darkroom - the chemicals and i don't agree. nor do they agree with my toddler.

a digital image is a photograph. it is on a different medium. post proceesing is dodging and burning. chemical rubs. selinium etc. baths. everyone played in the darkroom, it was fun. same here.'

see, you can be a purist photo geek and enjoy playing in the darkroom. my darkroom happens to be a computer now, that's all.
 09/26/2006 05:01:01 PM · #99
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by Artyste:
...Getting it "right" straight out of the camera is "showing off"? I have to disagree...


hey, glenn - you agreed with me. just a different way.

i used to be a 'purist' photographer. if it wasn't right in the camera, i didn't print it. it is a bit bravura-y. proving you can get it right every time. is that a bad thing? i don't think so. i apologise if my terminology implied otherwise.

and, yes,it is the photographer who decides what's right or not. that's what i meant by 'right'.

i just had a disappointed commenter realise that my holga were 'not photographs' because the effects on them are generated by an adobe action, rather than in camera. this is what i wrote in the comment section of that image:

'while this is a digital image, the effects achieved through post processing, this image could be a chieved quite easily in a darkroom. one would, of course, start with a grainy film (tri-x was always my choice). the distortion could be achieved by tilting the easel, the light exposure by selective butrning of the corners, and the sabatieed edges by flicking the darkroom lihgts on, again, whilst protecting the areas needed.

that is, if you loved the holga and didn't have one.

i love the holga, i don't have one. i no longer have a darkroom - the chemicals and i don't agree. nor do they agree with my toddler.

a digital image is a photograph. it is on a different medium. post proceesing is dodging and burning. chemical rubs. selinium etc. baths. everyone played in the darkroom, it was fun. same here.'

see, you can be a purist photo geek and enjoy playing in the darkroom. my darkroom happens to be a computer now, that's all.


Granted :)

I was just arguing, initially, that people that think they're hot stuff for getting it "right in camera" are only doing themselves a disservice.. IMO, and that bragging about it means nothing to a very great number of people ;) (I in no way meant I thought, or think, that you are/were showing off, ever :))
 09/26/2006 05:08:46 PM · #100
Originally posted by xianart:
see, you can be a purist photo geek and enjoy playing in the darkroom. my darkroom happens to be a computer now, that's all.

This is different. Most darkroom techniques were used to develop a photograph in the best possible fashion. However, Man Ray, for instance, didn't call his dark room experiments "photographs", did he?

Collages, obtained in a dark room, were not called photographs.

The dark room -- digital processing analogy is valid. It's just that the photographers usilizing the digital processing often don't realize when they start drifting into a form of art, different from photography.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:02:02 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:02:02 PM EDT.