If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 2013-12-06 08:18:06 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:55:46 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-12-06 04:26:42 +0000, PeterN said: On 12/5/2013 10:58 PM, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on things such as contrast, and grain? my claim is that in film days, knowing how and being proficient in darkroom work was not required. Not require for what. Snapshots and i've been there images, you are right. Is it your claim that a film photographer could produce art without a thorough understanding of what he was doing? I thought we were talking photography, not art. Photo journalists and documentarians do not consider themselves artists, they are photographers. ...and then there are the snapshot shooters who can on occasion be accidental artists, or documentarians. Just as long as it is clear: you are confining yourself to that class of photography. Why? We are talking about photography as a particular tool to make a visual record of any event, object or person. esoteric aspects of art are subjective and irrelevant in the face of the plodding technical steps of capturing light on some medium and putting into the hands of the viewer. The operator of that light capturing machine has little need for knowledge of the intermediate steps when there is somebody who can deal with that. The quality of those results was also irrelevant, witness the millions of awful snapshots and Kodachromes. ....and it seems there are quite a few folks who are nostalgic for photographic incompetence, I give you Instagram. There is a reason Polaroid was right for its time & successful. There were a bunch of folks who did not want to deal with the intermediary steps or chemistry. some photographers did do their own darkroom work, but as i said, it wasn't required. many pro photographers worked with a pro lab who took care of the details. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 2013-12-06 08:22:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:16:16 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: however, they don't need to know how to fix the car or tune it to perform the way they want. that's for the mechanics to do. It's hard to agree, less. While you don't have to know how to design and build a car, you can save an lot of money, if you have a basic understanding of the principals that make it work. e.g. On my station car the remote start stopped working and the cruise control wold not stay on. the mechanic was ringing the register, as he suggested what "had to be done." I asked him to test the battery, since I figured the common denominator waas an electrical problem. Bingo! i didn't say there weren't advantages to knowing how to fix cars. if someone knows how, they might be able to fix things on their own and can avoid the mechanic entirely. however, it's not *required*. not required for what? to race a car. try to keep up. How about wing adjustments, tire pressures, suspension settings etc. All subtle. All important. How about front-rear brake balance, and so much more. There is stuff which is dealt with by the engineers & mechanics in the pits, and there is stuff the driver has to deal with in the cockpit. Auto racing today is more than seat-of-the-pants, heel & toe work, and gear shift stirring. Note today's F-1 steering wheel and stuff which takes the driver into a different realm from days past. http://www.notasmartman.com/wp-conte...escription.jpg ....or if you prefer something other than Ferrari; http://www.autoracing1.com/Images/Ph...auberWheel.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
In article 2013120604172540194-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
nospam: nothing wrong with that but that's not a requirement to be a race car driver. Eric Stevens: Haw! Just imagine, two identical drivers except that one has the above abilities and the other doesn't. Who is going to come in first? Sandman: The better driver. ...and better team, which is more than the driver. Absolutely. I just thought Eric wanted to focus on the driver only. The team is more than the individual parts. The success of Sebastian Vettel would not be possible without Adrian Newey. No doubt. -- Sandman[.net] |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
In article 2013120604113266019-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens: even http://tinyurl.com/k33pc4h Today he might consider something along those awful lines, but he was able to do this with pencil, pen, ink, and a drawing table in 1937, 76 years ago, and with Wright, the current flock of architects have some mighty footprints to follow in, even though he didn't exactly embrace the vertical. http://www.newyorkpanorama.com/blog/...nheim-2000.jpg Oh stop it duck, you know perfectly well that such a thing requires a "zillion" architect-programmed scripts. It can't be done otherwise -- Sandman[.net] |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 12/5/2013 11:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-06 03:53:35 +0000, PeterN said: On 12/5/2013 12:46 PM, nospam wrote: In article 2013120509390876599-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: The idea that a top line architect wouldn't/shouldn't have an understanding of what he can an cannot do with the tools at his disposal. that's not what i said. obviously they need to know how to *use* their tools. what they don't need is how to *make* the tools, i.e., how to program a computer. Somehow I think you guys have been using the wrong analogies for a photo NG. Forget about the racecar driver & architect, how about the owner of any digital camera, compact, or DSLR? Do they need to have a knowledge of how to operate a computer to shoot photographs with their digital camera? no they do not, nor did film users need to know how to process their own film. Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on things such as contrast, and grain? Did you read "GOOD" anywhere to qualify "film users"? My point exactly. We were discussing photography, not snapshots. The great unwashed mass of photographers using film, shooting with Brownies, Kodak folders, & Argus C3s would even know what hypo was let alone being familiar with the smells of the darkroom. They probably never had the space for a darkroom, and hadn't even considered learning how to develop and print when there was a guy who could do it for them. There was also a time when press photographers shooting 35mm, would just drop courier, or mail undeveloped exposed film to the agency, or press room for the photo editor to deal with. As a matter of fact, that is what happened to Robert Capa's 11 D-Day shots for Life. They got screwed up by the technician back in London. There is a rumor/myth that technician, was soon to be a famous war photographer in his own right, Larry Burrows. http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html -- PeterN |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 12/5/2013 11:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-06 04:20:30 +0000, PeterN said: On 12/5/2013 10:53 PM, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: : Many photographers cannot write a script in PS, to automate simple : tasks. And they don't want to. : : they don't have to write anything. record an action and let the : computer do that for you. : : or, use many of the premade actions available for free and $. : : Whoosh! "Whoosh!"? I thought you and nospam were more or less on the same side of this argument. When in response to my statement that many artists do not even want to know how to create as script, his response, in effect that it is easy, shows a lack of understanding of hwat I said. i didn't say writing scripts was easy. what i said was if they want to automate a particular task, they don't have to write a script at all. they can record an action, doing what they normally would do to the image and let the computer take care of the details. or they can use actions already created by others. no script writing necessary. as usual, whoosh applies to you. would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record actions. the artist modifies each image, individually. Not all photographers are "artists". Depends on whether you classify a casual snapshooter as a photographer. -- PeterN |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 12/5/2013 11:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-12-06 04:26:42 +0000, PeterN said: On 12/5/2013 10:58 PM, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on things such as contrast, and grain? my claim is that in film days, knowing how and being proficient in darkroom work was not required. Not require for what. Snapshots and i've been there images, you are right. Is it your claim that a film photographer could produce art without a thorough understanding of what he was doing? I thought we were talking photography, not art. Photo journalists and documentarians do not consider themselves artists, they are photographers. ...and then there are the snapshot shooters who can on occasion be accidental artists, or documentarians. some photographers did do their own darkroom work, but as i said, it wasn't required. many pro photographers worked with a pro lab who took care of the details. Somewhere back I made it clear that I was excluding snapshots and "I've been there" inages from my definition of photography. There is little doubt in my mind that event photographers certainly use actions. I stand by my original comment, which got twisted by a certain individual, that in order to be successful, you have to have a good understanding of the effects of the physics and craft of photography. You need pre-visualization and sufficient knowledge to turn your vision into the image you want. When someone says that just sliding a few sliders is all you need ot do, it trivializes the art of photography. -- PeterN |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 12/6/2013 12:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article 2013120520184410257-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Somehow I think you guys have been using the wrong analogies for a photo NG. Forget about the racecar driver & architect, how about the owner of any digital camera, compact, or DSLR? Do they need to have a knowledge of how to operate a computer to shoot photographs with their digital camera? no they do not, nor did film users need to know how to process their own film. Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on things such as contrast, and grain? Did you read "GOOD" anywhere to qualify "film users"? he adds and deletes words so he can have something to argue about. He puts back the obvious context, to eliminate the irrelevancies, and ambiguities introduced by intellectually dishonest arguers. The great unwashed mass of photographers using film, shooting with Brownies, Kodak folders, & Argus C3s would even know what hypo was let alone being familiar with the smells of the darkroom. They probably never had the space for a darkroom, and hadn't even considered learning how to develop and print when there was a guy who could do it for them. There was also a time when press photographers shooting 35mm, would just drop courier, or mail undeveloped exposed film to the agency, or press room for the photo editor to deal with. As a matter of fact, that is what happened to Robert Capa's 11 D-Day shots for Life. They got screwed up by the technician back in London. There is a rumor/myth that technician, was soon to be a famous war photographer in his own right, Larry Burrows. http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html yep. In context your comments are meaningless. -- PeterN |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 12/6/2013 12:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record actions. the artist modifies each image, individually. wrong. most photographers aren't creating art, they're taking snapshots of memories. Only if you call a snapshooter a photographer. And, even if you do, they do not record actions. Stop twisting. You are either deliberately ignoring my stated context, or have forgotten how to read. -- PeterN |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 12/6/2013 12:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: : Many photographers cannot write a script in PS, to automate simple : tasks. And they don't want to. : : they don't have to write anything. record an action and let the : computer do that for you. : : or, use many of the premade actions available for free and $. : : Whoosh! "Whoosh!"? I thought you and nospam were more or less on the same side of this argument. he just likes to bash at any opportunity he gets, even when he hasn't any clue. See my reply. Your response to my statement is irrelevant, and shows a lack of grandstanding. actually your response shows a lack of reading comprehension and as i said, wanting to bash at any opportunity. see my other reply. True to form, when you lose an argument, you accuse someone of bashing you. You must have a bad headache from all that bashing. more accurately, you won't admit you ****ed up. /brilliant retort. We have yet to see some image that gives you any credibility. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
converting 35 mm slides to digital images | LeighWillaston | Digital Photography | 30 | June 18th 07 10:46 AM |
Converting 35mm Slides to Digital Images | Jim[_9_] | Digital Photography | 0 | June 2nd 07 02:18 PM |
Are you converting your RAW images to DNG? | JC Dill | Digital Photography | 140 | November 10th 06 04:07 PM |
QuickTake 150 images - Converting on PC | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | April 21st 06 03:00 PM |
Tool for converting 12-bit TIFF images to 16-bit TIFF-images? | Peter Frank | Digital Photography | 23 | December 13th 04 02:41 AM |