Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[ardarossan]

Neil and vnkiwi, Would you mind confirming that we are all looking at the same image please, because I'm starting to have some doubts?

Andy

Neil's 'perfect' photo? Really?

[Artistmike]

I would like to make the point that in pre-digital days a good photographer had access to a dark-room where some of the techniques that are used in photoshop could be carried out manually, cropping, altering exposures, colouring, using filters etc etc etc...... Not all great photos you see from pre-digital days are as they were taken straight out of the camera..... Digital procedures are often based on earlier non digital ones.....

[Martin (Admin)]

Very good point Mike!

 Even 'Snappysnaps' did some post production image processing with your 126 film! 
 

[Bowwave]

I would like to make the point that in pre-digital days a good photographer had access to a dark-room where some of the techniques that are used in photoshop could be carried out manually, cropping, altering exposures, colouring, using filters etc etc etc...... Not all great photos you see from pre-digital days are as they were taken straight out of the camera..... Digital procedures are often based on earlier non digital ones.....

I have to agree. Most of the post photo digital work carried out on a PC could be achieved in a dark room .I submitted contact prints, a selection was made and the rest was down to the work in the dark room. On occasions the editor would   include notes requesting this or that  photo, cropped, features highlighted, contrast adjusted.  It was a messy procedure  and the  bathroom was often  full of  prints drying off . 
Bowwave 

[LarryW]

 I like this one...    larry

[Netleyned]

Boat ain't vertical

Ned

[Neil]

Neil and vnkiwi, Would you mind confirming that we are all looking at the same image please, because I'm starting to have some doubts?

Andy

Neil's 'perfect' photo? Really?

 
eeerrrr not quite andy..........but a gudun all the same

[LarryW]

 hi
 nice to meet a critic, 
               try these 

[Bryan Young]

Photography….Oh dear. Another of those subjects that arise periodically. At least this one hasn’t as yet descended into veiled personal abuse!.
      Before the average person got a camera the main material was the use of the “Glass Plate”. No film. Half plate or Full plate. These were normally reproduced as contact prints….but just take a look at the sheer quality of these. I would refer you to eyeball the wonderful photos in the “Ships In Focus” journal for an object lesson in photography.
Then came the “Box Brownie” sort of camera. Two settings (sunny or cloudy). Click. Go to the local chemist and get the film processed.  Usually contact prints again. Lenses were crude to say the least, but the results gave pleasure to millions.
Along came 35mm cameras. High end or Low end….casual and personal picture taking became affordable. Then people began to fabricate their own darkrooms. Not cheap by any means. But still all in “Greyscale” (or black’n’white for us oldies). Bits of paper stuck on a stick would shield over-exposed bits. All very messy, hot and time consuming. And then cleaning up afterwards. But it was all we knew back then (1960s).
Buying packs of paper was always a trial. Kodak? Agfa? ….what contrast do you want? It was all a total education, and it took time to learn. The enlarger itself could be a real handful. If you weren’t careful it was easy to incinerate a negative such was the heat given out by the lamp.
I once taught a Chinese crew how to use the enlarger to project Gothic Script on to a white painted canvas so we could have a better than usual gangway screen. It worked, and saved a fortune.
But along came digital. No more messy darkrooms. Magic. Do it all “in the light”. But the old techniques still work even though they are all electronic.
An eye for the light, shadows, lampposts growing out of heads and that sort of thing. In general you may as well leave the camera on “Automatic” unless you want a bit of differential focus (Aperture setting).
The “eye” and composition will do the rest. Happy snapping! BY.

[yewgarth]

I think it's just an average pic too if that helps?

[Netleyned]

I think it's just an average pic too if that helps?

Well said that man

Ned

[Stavros]

Oh interesting this so can someone explain to me therfore why there is need to edit and photoshop as every camera these days has a histogram and if you can not read it to define if the appeture is correct then it is time to hang up the camera...my pics never get editted as I used to use film and slide and mistakes were very costly.When you used to use film and slide you had to get everything right,so why cant you do it now.
 
 
Dave

[Bryan Young]

Oh interesting this so can someone explain to me therfore why there is need to edit and photoshop as every camera these days has a histogram and if you can not read it to define if the appeture is correct then it is time to hang up the camera...my pics never get editted as I used to use film and slide and mistakes were very costly.When you used to use film and slide you had to get everything right,so why cant you do it now.
 
 
Dave

Because it's easier ...."click" and there's your masterpiece. Seemples. Or not.....BY.

[Neil]

I think it's just an average pic too if that helps?

if your comment helps you to come to terms with it, in anyway shape or form...........who am I to argue with it or you

[RMH]

I edit all my photos as I only shoot in RAW format which do need editing to be able to view them properly but the results are far better than capturing in JPEG. I also enjoy the process of editing to produce the result I want and not what the camera or one click software thinks I want. But hey, each to their own 

[RAAArtyGunner]

I edit all my photos as I only shoot in RAW format which do need editing to be able to view them properly but the results are far better than capturing in JPEG. I also enjoy the process of editing to produce the result I want and not what the camera or one click software thinks I want. But hey, each to their own 

I knew it was only a matter of time before nude, AKA raw photos, would be discussed 
 
Hope moderators are following this thread and delate any RAW photos. 

[irishcarguy]

I agree that a lot was possible in the dark room but the negative still had to be good to get a good print. The point missed by most up to now is that when you shot with slide film & sent it away for processing ,what you got you got.Though I have seen attempts at slide manipulation most was awful. When teaching we insisted that the students used slide film because when the button was pressed the photography was done & we could see the mistakes & talk of ways to correct them next time. Slide film also had a lot less exposure latitude than print film so exposure was critical. Today with Photoshop & other forms of manipulation the sky is the limit. If honest one must admit the first question that comes to mind when we see a great picture was how did they manipulate it. Photo's are no longer accepted as evidence in court either. Mick B.

[RAAArtyGunner]

 
" Photo's are no longer accepted as evidence in court either. Mick B. " Mick B.
 
That is a very relevant point, as well as, what you see in the photo may not be what was actually shot, but the final result.
Especially now that 'cut  & paste' to produce any result, is freely available to all.

[vnkiwi]

Bryan, very nicely put.
What you describe say's it all as so similar to my photographic path. Some glass plate negs have so much crisp clear detail that its unbelievable for such old equipment
Thanks for sharing
vnkiwi

[Artistmike]

That is a very relevant point, as well as, what you see in the photo may not be what was actually shot, but the final result.

Surely you're not suggesting some photos may not actually be real !

[Artistmike]

Some glass plate negs have so much crisp clear detail that its unbelievable for such old equipment
vnkiwi

There is a common assumption that new technology is better but in terms of photography that certainly isn't the case yet, direct transfer of light to the medium of film or glass plate preserves far more detail than commercially available digital cameras at the moment.

When I was in the army, doing some research that required some very exact detail in taking an image, we eventually resorted to a pin-hole type technique, as even a lens was causing too many aberrations to the final image.

[yewgarth]

Surely you're not suggesting some photos may not actually be real !

Huston we have a problem

[vnkiwi]

Hi ArtistMike,
Agree with you, modern technology is a lot easier to use as far as camera's go, ie point and shoot and still get disent exposure etc without even trying.
With glass plate, the operators skill was what counted, and having had the privilege to be allowed to scan some in my research, was amazed at the content captured, simply amazing, and so far better than modern digital has yet achieved, or what I achieved with my old Nikon F1.
cheers
vnkiwi

[Netleyned]

Our accident evidence and reporting pack used to include a polaroid camera as a court of enquiry would not accept any other photographic evidence

Ned

[Norseman]

Neil finds the photo appealing so it is ....
I think the subject has the potential to be much improved ...
Someone else will simply hate it because it doesn't. Comply...
Mainly subjective responses

To be honest I don't think portraits have ever been better than the Monochrome images of the movie eras. It was an art form for the skilled artisan.

Dave