Forum Rants

[fotofreek]

Further, nothing wrong with no post processing. However, a good image can be made great with tweeking.

To be clear, then --- is it the degree of post-processing and the deviation from what the original image presents that is of concern? I am not criticizing when I say that tweaking IS post-processing. If tweaking is a crime I stand convicted as charged.

 

[3dogs]

To be clear, then --- is it the degree of post-processing and the deviation from what the original image presents that is of concern? I am not criticizing when I say that tweaking IS post-processing. If tweaking is a crime I stand convicted as charged.

I am a full on tweeker, LR,PS, TOPAZ, NIK, ONONE, BIGANO.HELICON FOCUS AND THATS JUST THE FIRST FEW.
I am in hopes of not offending anyone but to me not processing is, in digital as impossible as for Ansel Adam to use Dektol and develop and print......he never did it....ever. All the greats of the past made a good negative in camera then made it a work of genius in the wet darkroom.
Added
I would rather sit my bare butt on a photocopier and press the copy button than waste my time and constrain my crativity (in B&W) to only the range of tones derived from .jpg. Shoot raw and it is already processed in the conversion.....the really great B&Whiters of the past used different processing chemicals to get tonal density differences.
100% bash in Silverefex is NO different. AA had squillions of different concoctions, masked and dodge and burn - simply stone age digital post processing.

 

[RogerB]

I am a full on tweeker, LR,PS, TOPAZ, NIK, ONONE, BOGANO.HELICON FOCUS AND THATS JUST THE FIRST FEW.
I am in hopes of not offending anyone but to me not processing is, in digital as impossible as for Ansel Adam to use Dektol and develop and print......he never did it....ever. All the greats of the past made a good negative in camera the made it a work of genius in the wet darkroom.

Didn't Ansel Adams say that the negative was the (musical) score and the print was the performance? I'm with him on that. Now, I'm not claiming that I'm in the same league as Ansel A, but in the digital realm I treat the RAW file as the score and the edited image as the performance. The print should then be a faithful recording of that performance. Like @3dogs I'm a full-on tweaker. The camera never captures what I saw, and always needs some prompting to get it right.

As for the much-criticised tutorial, I think he is just doing very basic editing of a flat capture. There's nothing unnatural to my eye in the final version that can't be atributed to the poor quality of YouTube posts.

 

[CakeHole]

The only good thing about digital in so many formats is convenience.

If you take the best possible photo you can, with the best possible digital camera and then the best possible film camera. The film camera will win and the image will look more natural each and everytime. You can not break the laws of physics...

A) 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan (which is basically what a digital camera does) most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or as near as 87 Megapixels.
B) But there is more... Film represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film. Since the "lie" factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you would probably need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes it onto film. (anyone that has ever watched a modern film done on actual film will know this as you get to see film grain and every detail imaginable, compare it to some modern CGI laden fest and that just looks like a big bold colourful cartoon).
C) Still think it is possible? That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."

Good luck ever getting a digital print the quality of analogue, not gonna happen.

Same goes for music, CD is not as good as old vinyl (no im not gonna argue in response either lol) only in this case not because CD is not technically as good or capable but because (like the picture example in this thread) tweaking the original (normally compressing) just makes it sound poop... Digital in addition to convenience has also led to laziness (hence why when you had film you made sure you took the picture right the first time, now with digital you either touch it up after or you take multiple images and pick the best AKA laziness).

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/analog-vs-digital-results

Someone else said someone (or words to the affect) you can not put back what was never there. If you do it just does not sound right, look right or in any way is right.

The spyro gyra album above was the only one originally recorded to CD and then transferred to vinyl (IE half modern mastering process) but even then it only just beat the vinyl by 0.1.

DIGITAL is good for one thing... convenience. There is a reason why film and vinyl has been around for well over 100 years and CD only lasted a couple or so decades, theres a reason why your digital camera medium has an "upgrade" each year also. The funny thing is for all its convenience what it has ultimately done is make people blind to quality and ultimately lazy. A real shame IMO........ Or it could just be as im over 30 and remember both i just sound old tot he kids.

 

[3dogs]

The only good thing about digital in so many formats is convenience.

If you take the best possible photo you can, with the best possible digital camera and then the best possible film camera. The film camera will win and the image will look more natural each and everytime. You can not break the laws of physics...

A) 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan (which is basically what a digital camera does) most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or as near as 87 Megapixels.
B) But there is more... Film represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film. Since the "lie" factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you would probably need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes it onto film. (anyone that has ever watched a modern film done on actual film will know this as you get to see film grain and every detail imaginable, compare it to some modern CGI laden fest and that just looks like a big bold colourful cartoon).
C) Still think it is possible? That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."

Good luck ever getting a digital print the quality of analogue, not gonna happen.

Same goes for music, CD is not as good as old vinyl (no im not gonna argue in response either lol) only in this case not because CD is not technically as good or capable but because (like the picture example in this thread) tweaking the original (normally compressing) just makes it sound poop... Digital in addition to convenience has also led to laziness (hence why when you had film you made sure you took the picture right the first time, now with digital you either touch it up after or you take multiple images and pick the best AKA laziness).

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/analog-vs-digital-results

Someone else said someone (or words to the affect) you can not put back what was never there. If you do it just does not sound right, look right or in any way is right.

The spyro gyra album above was the only one originally recorded to CD and then transferred to vinyl (IE half modern mastering process) but even then it only just beat the vinyl by 0.1.

DIGITAL is good for one thing... convenience. There is a reason why film and vinyl has been around for well over 100 years and CD only lasted a couple or so decades, theres a reason why your digital camera medium has an "upgrade" each year also. The funny thing is for all its convenience what it has ultimately done is make people blind to quality and ultimately lazy. A real shame IMO........ Or it could just be as im over 30 and remember both i just sound old tot he kids.

This thread is about one image and post processing, nothing to do with resoĺution.

Fact one the image demonstrates a process as part of a tutorial, the first of many.
Fact its not a fine art entrant.
Fact i t is being viewed under less than ideal conditions.

AND convenience is NOT the only benefit,
Its greatest benefit is that it eliminates exposure to nasty chemicals, and that is just the first of many.

Its a world that offers many freedoms, a person so disposed could have a guard walk in front of their car with a warning flag, after all following the logic presented that is better......and safer.
Cheers
Andrew

Added :

By GOLLY! this is an actual rant..............My first BABY

 

[CakeHole]

This thread is about one image and post processing, nothing to do with resoĺution.

Fact one the image demonstrates a process as part of a tutorial, the first of many.
Fact its not a fine art entrant.
Fact i t is being viewed under less than ideal conditions.

All of which demonstrates my "lazy" theroy with digital. Or less care when taking the picture because you just intend to buther it afterwards anyway.

AND convenience is NOT the only benefit,
Its greatest benefit is that it eliminates exposure to nasty chemicals, and that is just the first of many.

Except for the people that build your digital camera in the first place, complete with silicon chips and circuit boards aplenty. So yes while a single individual developing film is saved a factory full of workers could POTENTIALLY be exposed to harmful chemicals also. Oh and lets not forget the world as a whole is subjected to more pollution as the latest greatest digital camera comes out every year rather than 5-10 like it did with analogue cameras. Ignoring that there is then the stress of meeting demand for new gadgets each year and poor people such as those at foxconn jumping of the roof.

Even ignoring all that seeing as this is a printer forum i personally would not want to be whiffing a bottle of refil ink directly and regularly either, which is what i assume most here will be producing their digital masterpieces with, you can then chuck away your empty plastic ink cart if you do not refill for it to end up in the ocean as fish food somewhere.

Or short version its a bit silly comparing "health" benefits of digital over analogue as obviously they both have their downsides.

Its a world that offers many freedoms, a person so disposed could have a guard walk in front of their car with a warning flag, after all following the logic presented that is better......and safer.
Cheers
Andrew

Added :

By GOLLY! this is an actual rant..............My first BABY

Id personally say based on statistics of car accidents you would be better off not using the car at all if that concerned (same goes for safety concerns over chemicals etc you mention). Im not sure the guard walking in front of the car would feel too safe either.

 

[Smudger]

It seems to me that there are two kinds of people: those who can get the image they want out of a camera, and those who cannot.

 

[3dogs]

It seems to me that there are two kinds of people: those who can get the image they want out of a camera, and those who cannot.

So true, and I want better than the camera I want what I see and imagine. Camera that can do that has not been made yet.
Cheers

 

[CakeHole]

So true, and I want better than the camera I want what I see and imagine. Camera that can do that has not been made yet.
Cheers

I guess there are 2 kinds of tweaking, those which are done to make an image look like you want it to look (IE personal preference or "what you imagine") which is fine as it is not pretending to be anything else and those designed to deceive (or try to) the individual into believing what they are seeing is real.

 

[3dogs]

I guess there are 2 kinds of tweaking, those which are done to make an image look like you want it to look (IE personal preference or "what you imagine") which is fine as it is not pretending to be anything else and those designed to deceive (or try to) the individual into believing what they are seeing is real.

................and just how exactly is anyone looking at a Photographic image supposed to arrive at the conclusion that the tweaking performed on the image they are looking at was "designed to deceive (or try to) the individual into believing what they are seeing is real?"