On Apr 8, 2005, at 7:40 AM, John Francis wrote:
I took a quick look at the images. On my (uncalibrated) notebook LCD
screen, it's really difficult to see much of a difference in the 2nd
and 3rd image pairs - there's certainly less variation there than I
get from monitor adjustments, or switching t
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Looking at it another way, suppose your RAW conversion is a fully
calibrated
hands free process (PS CS can be set up this way), just like calibrated
chemistry for film processing. In thi
On 7 Apr 2005 at 13:15, Tom C wrote:
> In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts,
> then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing.
> Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is for
> negative film users.
Lookin
Oh well, we live in a time when one is likely to be strongly punsished for what
one might possibly do at some time, while people are let go for what they have
definately done. Pat gave a presentation about this whole thing at GFM Camera
Clinic year before last. It was clear then that he was bein
Interesting... Thanks Paul.
Also interesting that the results are are compared while still in front of
the subject.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:40:36 +
All
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Roberts mused:
>>
>> Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It
>> includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their
>> original and altered versions:
>> http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/oct
then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing.
> Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is
> for negative film users.
>
> Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :)
>
> Tom C.
>
>
> >From: K
Mark Roberts mused:
>
> Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It
> includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their
> original and altered versions:
> http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html
Interesting. Thanks, Mark.
I took a
.
From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:32:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Godfrey, this was what I stated -
> To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing
sides.
LOL ... I suspect you're right. ;-)
Godfrey
dfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Apr 7, 2005 2:04 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>> To me at least, there seems to be no transparency equivalent in the
>>> digi
On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
To me at least, there seems to be no transparency equivalent in the
digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital
manipulation.
It's just a factor of how much is done where and when.
Transparency films require processing after exposure
tone and
color.
With digital, I don't have that.
Tom C.
From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:46 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
To me the point is that the tra
On 7/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Patrick Schneider was the featured speaker at the Grandfather Mountain
>Camera Clinic in August of 2003, just days after all this went down. He
>was very open and forthcoming about the whole business and it made for
>some interesting discussion
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Mark Roberts"
>
>> Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It
>> includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their
>> original and altered versions:
>> http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/octo
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is
the
Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the Hou
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It
includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their
original and altered versions:
htt
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Apr 6, 2005 8:59 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Tom C wrote:
> To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the
> digital world. All images receive p
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"The N.C. Press Photographers Association has rescinded three awards given
>to Observer photographer Patrick Schneider in its 2002 statewide
>competition.
>
>The board ruled that Schneider had altered the editorial content of some
>photos he entered by
> fra: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush
> > kissing
> > Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later
> > remove
> > the foot of a bird in t
Brings to mind that there is another meaning of the word "congress".
John
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:28:02 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic
is the
Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps
Fede
an
find a difference in any pair of prints you care to supply.
mike
Herb
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I suppose the answer to your question is y
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing
Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove
the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot wa
On 7/4/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the
>Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal
>Parliament (not my pic):
>
>http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg
LOL!
Cheers,
Co
Hi,
> Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the
> Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal
> Parliament (not my pic):
> http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg
thanks Rob. Now I have to clean the sprayed coffee off my monitor.
Au
ROTFLMAO
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert
> Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is
the
> Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps
Federal
> Parliament (not my pic):
>
> http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg
On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing
> Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove
> the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot was
> sticking o
> fra: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> >> What sort of alterations are you implying?
> >
> > Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the
> > content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garb
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I really don't see any point in thrashing this out yet again.
The last time was only, what, a couple of months back?
..
So let's just drop it now, before someone gets
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What sort of alterations are you implying?
Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the
content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garbage, a lamp
post, a fellow photographer etc. We have to belive in
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story
altogether, and one that I will not comment on here.
"The N.C. Press Photographers Association has re
Anyway, it rather looks like this thread will soon be dying a natural
death anyway.
cheers,
frank
No way man. It ain't and I ain't gonna let it! It'll fill your inbox for
hours! :)
Tom C.
On Apr 6, 2005 1:42 PM, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really don't see any point in thrashing this out yet again.
> The last time was only, what, a couple of months back?
>
> It's obvious that there are some people on the list for whom
> even as trivial an alteration as removing a g
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
We're just gonna have to disagree. I know it's possible ... as I said,
one
must pay attention to a myriad of details. Surprisingly, some of what I
learned that has helped me ge
On Apr 6, 2005 11:07 PM, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No I'm not.
>
> Okay, yes I am.
>
> I was going to make a further comment about FoxNews, but due to your
> (implied) exhortation to let it drop, I will. List decorum must be
> paramount.
>
> I was just poking a bit of f
On Apr 6, 2005 8:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I replied to Cotty's message. That will be the extent of my comments. You're
> fishing, Frank.
No I'm not.
Okay, yes I am.
I was going to make a further comment about FoxNews, but due to your
(implied) exhortation to l
Herb
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
For what purpose are they not good enough? The galleries I've visited that
sell BW prints take great pride in the fact that e
y has
more dynamic range. when you can't fix it, feature it.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphe
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Tom C wrote:
To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the
digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation.
It's just a factor of how much is done where and when.
Transparency films require processing after exposure too. C
Yes, your point? ;)
Tom C.
Of course you're ignoring the fact that for anything other than viewing
with a light table and a loupe or projecting, a transparency must be
post-processed as well.
Paul
>
> >
> >On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote:
> >
> > > I understand what your saying, but RAW is a
Uh oh... My paradigm has been changed. Just when I was getting the hang of
it. :( Damn digital.
Tom C.
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 200
Herb said:
> but they are not identical, just very close. producing a limited edition set
> of 25 or 50 that are close to one another isn't good enough.
>
For what purpose are they not good enough? The galleries I've visited that sell
BW prints take great pride in the fact that each print is uni
Of course you're ignoring the fact that for anything other than viewing with a
light table and a loupe or projecting, a transparency must be post-processed as
well.
Paul
>
> >
> >On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote:
> >
> > > I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically refe
I replied to Cotty's message. That will be the extent of my comments. You're
fishing, Frank.
> On Apr 6, 2005 12:00 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> > >I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story
> >
> It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has
> benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when
> using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film
> itself).
> I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as oppo
but they are not identical, just very close. producing a limited edition set
of 25 or 50 that are close to one another isn't good enough.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:09 PM
Subjec
On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote:
> I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred
to as a
> digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is
not true
> of transparencies, in general.
Rob S. wrote:
That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's
On Apr 6, 2005 12:00 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story
> >altogether, and one that I will not comment on here.
>
> Challenge:
>
> take a major international news
On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote:
> I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as
> a
> digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not
> true
> of transparencies, in general.
That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I pre
On 6/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Even the lowest of the low have standards!
>
>
LOL. I'm obviously at my best with a bug up my ass.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.c
On 6/4/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed:
>So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice,
>no point of view? I don´t believe you.
I'm sorry, but I did not write that.
This is what I wrote:
> The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or
> s
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>To discuss this in more detail on-list could get us into dangerous waters.
Agreed ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Even the lowest of the low have standards!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:57:41 +
> Now in the digital world, RAW is all the rage, but precisely for many of
the
> opposite reasons transparency was predominantly viewed as good.
In truth, RAW is all the rage for many of the same reasons that
transpar
> Now in the digital world, RAW is all the rage, but precisely for many of the
> opposite reasons transparency was predominantly viewed as good.
In truth, RAW is all the rage for many of the same reasons that transparencies
are embraced. The RAW image is your basic unadulterated information. Di
Tom Reese wrote:
I'd rather spend my time trying to take good pictures than trying to fix
bad
ones. I'm a slide shooter and I try to get the shot right before I press
the
button.
Amen. That's where I'm coming from too. Not that there's anything wrong
with manipulation and adjustment after the
Shel Belinkoff quoted someone from the Luminous Lanscape who wrote:
"I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I
took in the field - I care about what I can make of the image in
postproduction."
then Shel asked for comment:
"Any comments on this?"
I'm writing with
Dag wrote:
So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, no
point of view? I don´t believe you. I still ask if we should stop
believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without
removing it from his interpretation of the truth.
Of course the news or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
>
> > fra: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
> >
>
Cotty mused:
>
> On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story
> >altogether, and one that I will not comment on here.
>
> Challenge:
>
> take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and on
På 6. apr. 2005 kl. 17.58 skrev Cotty:
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the
pictures
shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is
altered?
The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell
I've watched BBC coverage of events right alongside the coverage of US
networks. The footage is generally similar, the reporting of events can vary
greatly, pariticularly in situations of a political nature. (This is also true
from one US network to another.) What each network reports is general
On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story
>altogether, and one that I will not comment on here.
Challenge:
take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and one
from the BBC.
Report back.
>> >I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are
>> >quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I
>> >think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot.
>>
>> Agreed. First hand experence.
>
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unlea
Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> William Robb mused:
> >
> > I've noticed quite a trend over the past couple of decades in the media.
> A
> > lot of what can be described kindly as opinion pieces, or unkindly as
> > outright propoganda is finding it's way into the news and being pres
> fra: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
>
> >> Agreed. First hand experence.
> >
> > So, if this honest a
>
> On Apr 6, 2005 6:00 PM, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > WR> Not really.
> > WR> I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect
> > print,
> > WR> at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my
> >
That's not necessarily a smile. I frequently start over with the RAW and
sometimes end up with something very different.
> For every print you start from scratch with the original RAW file :-)
>
> Dave S
>
> On Apr 6, 2005 6:00 PM, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> That's a ridiculou
PS> difficult to replicate on subsequent prints. Of course I think we'd all
PS> agree with what Frantisek said. The artistic value of handmade prints
PS> lies partly in the fact that no two are identical. Each is an
PS> individual work, however closely it might resemble its peers.
LOL :) I just
Ken asked:
>
> And photographers of fine art images are..?
>
Artists, whose goal is to interpret the world in a fresh and interesting way.
Reality isn't always an important consideration.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Agreed. First hand experence.
So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures
shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is
altered
For every print you start from scratch with the original RAW file :-)
Dave S
On Apr 6, 2005 6:00 PM, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> That's a ridiculous statement ...
>
> WR> Not really.
> WR> I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect
> print,
> WR> at least
>There are always violators but by and large I
> think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot.
And photographers of fine art images are..?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
> On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> I guess you're being facetious. But I t
Yes, the affect of temperature and agitation is a matter of degree but
that degree is minimal. And I've resorted to things like the local
application of high strength developer and even blowing on a portion of
a print to warm it, but, unlike film, prints reach full development
rather quickly at
Temp and agitation are not as critical in printmaking, but I like to
maintain those things as precisely as possible. The truth is, when
printing, a lot of time my prints are physically out of the developer as i
work on small areas with Q-tips and "hot" developer, massaging certain
areas, and so on
>> That's a ridiculous statement ...
WR> Not really.
WR> I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print,
WR> at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my
WR> dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print.
WR> It hap
ot;Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
That's a ridiculous statement ...
Not really.
I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect
print,
at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of
my
dodging and burning routin
d the nature of the beast is that it's difficult to
control.
Paul
On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:09 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
That's a ridiculous statement ...
Not really.
I have a few negatives th
I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story
altogether, and one that I will not comment on here.
Paul
On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:06 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I g
> fra: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> "What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern
> >> digital age is in using the computer in making an image.
>
> > Ansel Adams said (quite a long time ago) almost exactly the same thing about
> > printing his picures in the darkroom
Hi,
>> "What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern
>> digital age is in using the computer in making an image.
> Ansel Adams said (quite a long time ago) almost exactly the same thing about
> printing his picures in the darkroom.
Ansel Adams thought presentation was
> fra: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are
> >quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I
> >think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are
>quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I
>think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot.
Agreed. First hand experence.
Cheers,
William Robb mused:
>
> I've noticed quite a trend over the past couple of decades in the media. A
> lot of what can be described kindly as opinion pieces, or unkindly as
> outright propoganda is finding it's way into the news and being presented as
> news, rather than what it really is.
Ain't
On 5 Apr 2005 at 23:20, William Robb wrote:
> If you have a complicated printing regime for a
> particular negative, that you have arrived at through many hours of printing
> test after test after test, you have put the creative input into the process.
> After that, you have to repeat the same set
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
It sounds realistic to me, not ridiculous.
I agree. And in any case, if you're going to reduce the process to a
mechanical following of a recipe/formula, you might as well let a
mach
Rob Reiter at http://www.lightroom.com/ showed me some masking techniques a
few years ago when we were working on a small Ilfochrome project. He's
doing mostly digital now, but I wonder if he's got some masking stuff still
around.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb
> Sadly, Kodak
My negs are always perfect for my printing techniques (Those who do
darkroom work know exactly what I mean ). Some of my older negs
hoover big time, and I had lots of trouble printing them, and still do in
some instances. I got a 645 neg from Bruce Dayton some time ago and
couldn't get a decent p
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Most printers have their own language to describe dodge/burn a print needs
to
be subjected to however it's not universal. Consistent results WRT D&B can
be
obtained using
William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
>
> > Well, maybe I should amend that statement. It is difficult in that you
> > have to pay careful attention to details, such
There are ways to work in the darkroom, and there are WAYS to work in a
darkroom. I may have a little added benefit over some because for a number
of years I worked in a print shop, making half tones, burning plates,
making negs and masks, and so on. As you noted, there are techniques that
go bey
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
We're just gonna have to disagree. I know it's possible ... as I said,
one
must pay attention to a myriad of details. Surprisingly, some of what I
learned that has helped me ge
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
CNN might change your mind about that.
What have tabloid reporters got to do with photojournalists?
They present themselves as photojournalists, and a lot of people think they
are photoj
On 6 Apr 2005 at 14:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Duplicating a print in the darkroom is hard if there is much manipulation
> happening to get it just right. Even if you keep good notes there is a lot
> of handwork, dodging and burning and so on that isn't able to be repeated
> exactly time after
How much B&W darkroom work have you done, John?
That results are not repeatable is another of these fallacies that have
drifted around for years. In order to get repeatable results you have to
get down to getting the mechanics of the darkroom right, but that doesn't
mean you're operating like a m
As I may have said, I try not to dodge and burn, and use other techniques
wherever possible to adjust tonality and contrast.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb
> I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect
print,
> at least a very good one, and even with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused:
>
> > Herb Chong said:
> >
> > > in the wet darkroom, getting the perfect print from a negative once
> > > doesn't mean you will ever get it again.
> >
>
> Shel Belinkoff said:
> >
> > That's a ridiculous statement ...
> >
>
> Why is it ridiculous?
> Duplicating a pri
William Robb mused:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
>
>
> >I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are quite
> >dedicated to truth. Ther
We're just gonna have to disagree. I know it's possible ... as I said, one
must pay attention to a myriad of details. Surprisingly, some of what I
learned that has helped me get repeatable results I learned from you, Bill,
both wrt technique and equipment. Other things I learned from other
printe
Herb's statement is very broad and general. See my subsequent responses.
Personally, it's not that difficult for me to get repeatable results.
There are a number of B&W printers I know who can do so as well. Whether or
not you believe it's possible depends on your own experience, I suppose.
Shel
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
