Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

  1. #101

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Quote Originally Posted by David Luttmann View Post
    He has proven no experience in the digital arena by comments he makes.....you overestimate him.
    I don't know what his experience is, and I suspect you don't either. The fact that you don't agree with his comments doesn't make him unknowledgeable.

  2. #102

    Re: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Quote Originally Posted by roteague View Post
    I don't know what his experience is, and I suspect you don't either. The fact that you don't agree with his comments doesn't make him unknowledgeable.
    Jorge has stated that he doesn't know Photoshop nor digital work very well.....he doesn't need to.....he is more than proficient with pt/pd printing.

    The fact is, YOU didn't know this and as such are posting nothing more than your ill informed opinion. He will talk circles around me in traditional printing....as I will about digital printing with him. Best to keep to yourself on this one.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,031

    Re: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Incredible, this thread still has life almost 11 months later.

    No question about it, any thread that begins with, "Not a troll," is gonna reel 'em in....

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    757

    Re: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Jorge

    I've spent a lot of time over the past few months trying to produce good digital negatives for Pt/Pd (negatives which will produce prints which are very close to those produced from an in camera negative). I'm getting closer, but I haven't managed to myself, yet... But, I recently saw some of Don Bryant's palladium prints from digital negatives and unless you examine them extremely carefully, you won't discern a difference. So, the technology/experience/process is coming along really fast, and I for one am pretty certain that you or me, with the right mix of application, hard work, skill and a healthy dose of old fashioned luck, will be able to produce pt prints from digital negatives which very closely resemble prints from in camera negatives. The learning curve is steep, technology is improving by the day and the knowledge base around this subject increase dramatically all the time.

    It also doesn't mean that you will want to produce your prints from digital negatives - that choice is yours and you will do what you choose - as will others....

  5. #105

    Re: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Hello Marko,

    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    Yes, I am talking about the skills. If obtaining that level of skill in any endeavor, be it Photoshop, the darkroom or what have you, was so easy as you say, then we would all be writing books. Better yet, nobody would be writing them because they wouldn't be needed.
    PhotoShop has passed the realm of professionals and landed solidly in the hands of amateurs. Some people barely understand how a computer operates, let alone actually doing something creative using a computer. There is a huge market of How To books, simply because there is demand. However, getting a successful book out on the market is just like many other things in life, you need the right connections, and networking in the right places.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    I will venture to say that obtaining the level of Photoshop skill demonstrated by Mr. Monroy is no easier than obtaining top level darkroom skills. After all, it's just a craft, isn't it?
    It might help to understand the defining aspects of skill levels: there is the Adobe Certification, tests administered by temp agencies (Aquent, Adecco, Creative Partners, et al), and a level of not being limited by the tools. The Adobe Certification might seem impressive, and can be a good thing for teachers, though it is vastly weighted towards the tools, options, and toolsets. Tests administered by Aquent, Adecco, et al are intended to gauge how fast one can work in the software, meaning the skill sets are focused towards accomplishing certain tasks; do well enough and you will be listed as an expert to potential hiring companies. Neither of these gives any indication of an ability to express a creative vision using PhotoShop.

    Interestingly enough, companies that want someone to be creative will not look at your software qualifications, they want to see a portfolio. Mr. Monroy is not talented because he knows PhotoShop, he is talented because he can express a creative vision. That is chooses to put creative emphasis on PhotoShop probably helps sell some books and workshops. Oh . . . just a side note, one of his co-authors on one of his books was a professor of mine at San Diego State University.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    It may feel easy and simple for you precisely because of your education and experience, but I am willing to bet that those who dismiss it as something "any 15 year old could do" would find it much harder and complex to get anywhere close to Mr. Monroy's level.
    Well, I agree with you on that, and find it a vast overstatement that any 15 year old could use PhotoShop. They might be able to accomplish a few things, or learn the tools, but most teenagers will be missing experience to express a cohesive creative vision. Unless one only wants to work in production (graphic arts, or production artist) just learning PhotoShop is fairly meaningless. Just like any software, at some point it will be common to know just enough to trick people into believing you understand more than they do, which can help people get work; the problem then is when you really do need to know what you are doing . . . a concept that is lost on some people.

    Okay, so I have lots of education and experience, but I still don't think the software is a barrier. Anyone who wants to attain a level of proficiency in PhotoShop so that it is no longer limiting their ability to express their creative vision, should be able to practice with nearly any version for about one year, and achieve their goal. If you approach it like it is tough or difficult, then it will be so; approach it like there are numerous aspects and toolsets (lots of information), and I think anyone who puts their mind to it can learn the software.

    If you think the Adobe Certified PhotoShop Expert is the level of greatness, then study their test, take it, and get your certificate. Funny thing is I see that like my Certificate in MicroSoft Word; I know the software well enough to have taught others, but I can barely type 20 words per minute.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

Similar Threads

  1. Mounting Photos
    By cp in forum Business
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 29-Oct-2007, 19:45
  2. Photos in the forum?
    By Henry Ambrose in forum Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22-Apr-2004, 11:50
  3. Displaying Photos
    By Don Harpold in forum On Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 1-Mar-2004, 15:20
  4. stacks of old photos
    By tim atherton in forum Business
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 17-Oct-2003, 15:13
  5. Which is the Best Lense for 1:1 Photos
    By Rainer in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 3-Apr-2002, 20:40

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •