File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
C&C /p/? Been getting nothing but positive comments and I need some actual crit.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Model&Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:04:04 03:27:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height522
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Interesting. Recolored sepiatone? Split-tone? Selective desaturation?
>> Anonymous
Maybe you should try taking the picture when the person is actully looking at the camera.

in before shes just smelling the weeds, I was trying to capture the natural scene, I wanted to contrast her hair to nature etc
>> Anonymous
>>155866

Sepia-tinted B&W layer with about 10% of the layer erased around the subject...so yeah, I guess you could call it selective desaturization. Also a few other minor edits to make it look more grungy.
>> Anonymous
>>155867

actually she's taking a picture. The shots that I got of her with the camera in view turned out shitty.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Really really nice processing, terrible photo. Photos of people's backs are rarely interesting. Get some face in there.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>155870
Agreed. Really like the look of it, but would like something more than her back as the focus.
>> Anonymous
Subject: 5/10
Framing: 8/10
Exposure: 8/10
PP: 7/10
Overall: 6.5
>> Anonymous
>>155875

get the fuck out of here with that shit
>> Anonymous
>>155870
>>155872

Thanks for the help. I've got some shots that I took with her camera that I'll probably have by thursday or so that I plan on doing the same style processing with. I'll probably post one or two of them on here when I get em.
>> Anonymous
>>155876
2/10
>> Anonymous
Ugly model, lame post processing.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
boring as balls... the post processing is kinda cool, except you screwed it up a little (there's some green patches around the person)

but hey, i wanna see more of your work
post if you have any
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>155931

Well, from the same batch I posted this shot a week or so ago and got some mixed replies.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:04:07 20:58:41Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height917
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>155931

And then here's one I did while still figuring out how to make the OP style of processing.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Model&Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:04:07 21:01:04Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height523
>> Anonymous
>>156020
I like.

>>156023
boring shot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>155931

One last one that I'll post, a slightly older, less grungy shot.
>> Anonymous
>>156020
>>156023

both suck

>>156031

sucks slightly less hard
>> Anonymous
>>156031
why is bokeh in the shape of diagonal lines?
>> lurker !rK4K86e49M
I FUCKING LOVE CHICKENS LOOOOOOLFGUCK
>> Anonymous
1) Photoshop trickery = for fags. Learn how to do it in-camera or in the darkroom, asshole.

2) Poor composition cannot be masked with Photoshop effects.
>>155864
Fucking terrible. I really like the background, but why is she facing away from you? She should be facing you, you idiot.
>>156020
Just horrible. Really bad.
>>156023
This is the best of the 3. I hate how much of it was done in Photoshop instead of through real processes, but it's at least vaguely interesting and well-composed.
>>156031
Ok, but nothing special. Close photographs of chickens always seem to come out well.
>> Anonymous
>>156359
How is the darkroom different from Photoshop?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>156361
>How is the darkroom different from Photoshop?


...
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>156364
You can work with chemicals or you can work with pixels. Either way, experience makes a huge difference and rushing will hurt the results. You use the methods appropriate to your medium. Get over it.
And for the record I agree that it's better to do as much as you can in camera first.
>> Anonymous
>>156370

I'm not RAGEing about Photoshop. Hell, I use it a lot myself.
I'm RAGEing about scrubs who don't understanding the difference, and the death of craft in the art world.

But then I'm an oldfag curmudgeon who used to do my primary photography with an Argus C3 and is only switching to digital because film is too expensive and I don't have access to a darkroom any more.
>> Anonymous
>>156031
Cute penguin
>> Anonymous
>>156375
Conceptually, there's no difference. Both are ways to take a capture image and put it into the form the photographer desires. No more, no less. Different working methods are no different than writing a book by hand or typing it on a computer- different experiences and workflows, but both equal.

And there is definitely craft to Photoshop. Knowing how to use just the right development times or whatever is the same as knowing the right radius to set when using USM for local contrast enhancement.
>> Anonymous
>>156378
>Different working methods are no different than writing a book by hand or typing it on a computer- different experiences and workflows, but both equal.

Not really.
Illuminated Manuscript =VS= Machine Printed/Bound Book designed using InDesign

Illuminated Manuscript wins every time because of the craft needed to do it and the way in which it allows the creator complete control over every element and the ability to express themselves in all aspects of the item's manufacture.

The fact that you compare any aspect of fine-art darkroom work to using the fucking Unsharp Mask filter just shows how pig-ignorant you are of traditional photography techniques.
>> Anonymous
>>156384
How is the amount of control different? It would be entirely possible for a book to be designed on a computer, and still incorporate illuminations and ultimately be bound in fine leather.

And enlighten me: what's so different about having the knowledge and subjective judgment to use a specific developing time, developer, paper, whatever, and having the knowledge and subjective judgment to use a specific setting for a filter, or a specific method of sharpening, or a certain curve shape?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156385
>And enlighten me: what's so different about having the knowledge...
Well, for one thing, there's no 'Undo' in a wet darkroom.

(But I do agree with you that the other guy's a tool. I will grant some extra points for doing it the hard way, but if the end result is the same, not a lot. And if the end result is *better* using photoshop, then I don't think doing it the hard way gives one enough points to make up the deficit. Photography is not performance art. The end result is the thing that matters)
>> Anonymous
>>156386
Of course it's harder to acquire darkroom skills for just that reason, but it doesn't make the skills any less in and of themselves or any less of a craft.
>> Anonymous
>How is the amount of control different? It would be entirely possible for a book to be designed on a computer, and still incorporate illuminations and ultimately be bound in fine leather.

This totally ignores the art of bookmaking. Good job.
There are some machine-produced books that are great in their own way, but they will NEVER be the same.

>And enlighten me: what's so different about having the knowledge and subjective judgment to use a specific developing time, developer, paper, whatever, and having the knowledge and subjective judgment to use a specific setting for a filter, or a specific method of sharpening, or a certain curve shape?

Take a darkroom class and you'll see.
For straight 1-to-1 printing of the image as-is onto paper either is equally good, but in experimentation the advantage lies in the darkroom.
It's the difference between pure, visceral experimentation where you can create images that cannot be replicated and mucking about with a bunch of layers and filters.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156389
>but in experimentation the advantage lies in the darkroom.
You are confusing "objectively better" with "what I prefer".
>> Anonymous
>>156389
>There are some machine-produced books that are great in their own way, but they will NEVER be the same.

Really? You're not shitting me? There's a difference between painting illuminations and graphic design?

Of course there's differences. But neither one is inherently better or more "craftful" than the other. Both require specialized skills and knowledge.

>you can create images that cannot be replicated

How is this an advantage?

Also, content delivery > craft for its own sake. The whole point of form is to carry content; that it's amazing and pleasant is a welcome sideline.
>> Anonymous
>Of course there's differences. But neither one is inherently better or more "craftful" than the other. Both require specialized skills and knowledge.

ANYONE can learn how to lay out a book in InDesign.
Handmade books require artistic ability.

>How is this an advantage?
>Also, content delivery > craft for its own sake. The whole point of form is to carry content; that it's amazing and pleasant is a welcome sideline.

Limited = precious
Unlimited/easily replicated = throwaway.

>>156391
>You are confusing "objectively better" with "what I prefer".

Yes and no. Again, take a fucking darkroom class.
>> noko
>>156395
>ANYONE can learn how to lay out a book in InDesign.
>Handmade books require artistic ability.

All the software does is speed up the process. Anyone can learn how to lay out a book, it's easy, digital or not. If you have artistic ability, you can make the same book only better digitally as you could an illuminated book.

Doing it in hand is slow, painstaking and does require more craftsmanship though, particularly if you want machine-like finesse.
>> Anonymous
ignoring the faggotry currently happening in this thread, I'm curious about that the OP image looked like before he took it into photoshop. post pix plz?
>> Anonymous
Exclusivity is bull.
>>156395
>ANYONE can learn how to lay out a book in InDesign.
>Handmade books require artistic ability.

ANYONE can learn to properly focus and expose a photograph. Does this make photography a lesser medium than painting?

Exclusivity is not something to be valued.

>Limited = precious
>Unlimited/easily replicated = throwaway.

Only if you derive something's value from things external to itself. I treat all my books, even the mass-market paperbacks, with great care and respect, out of respect for the literature within them. I own a few leather and cloth-bound books, but they receive the same treatment as a $5 paperback that I could replace with a ten minute trip to the bookstore.

And I personally think it would be wonderful if I could walk up the street to the drugstore and buy an M8 or MP for $5. Or even more so, if we could exactly duplicate a old master painting, down to every last subatomic particle, so Rembrandt's "Philosopher in Meditation" or Modigliani's portrait of Chaim Soutine could hang on the walls of every museum in the world, or even every home, so everyone could enjoy and be edified by them. Unfortunately, that's impossible. But it would be wonderful, because all those things have independent, great value in and of themselves. I don't see any reason to look at a print like a rare commodity.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156395
>ANYONE can learn how to lay out a book in InDesign.
Well that's just flat out not true. Even ignoring the technical aspects, coming up with visually pleasing page layouts is just as much of an art as photographic composition.
>> It's a wrench, not a god des
>>156395
>limited = easier to market
>easily replicated = harder to market

fix'd.
I enjoy darkroom work.
These days there's almost no advantage to doing anything in the darkroom if you didn't cut your teeth in one. Outside, of course, of artificially limited printings. Which you can do outside the darkroom. So, yeah.
I'm only talking B&W here, colour darkroom advocation is just silly at this point.

>Handmade books require artistic ability.
Tools do not dictate artistic value.
>> Anonymous
>>156398
>If you have artistic ability, you can make the same book only better digitally as you could an illuminated book.

You clearly have no understanding of the art of binding & bookmaking.

>>156400
>ANYONE can learn to properly focus and expose a photograph. Does this make photography a lesser medium than painting?

Yes, it does.

>I don't see any reason to look at a print like a rare commodity.

Thank God printmaking artists don't rely on people like you or all letterpresses would be out of business.

>Well that's just flat out not true. Even ignoring the technical aspects, coming up with visually pleasing page layouts is just as much of an art as photographic composition.

Sure, great photography and great page layout are arts, but there is no entry bar one must clear to do semi-decent digital photography & digital bookmaking. At least with darkroom/hand-binding you have to learn the basics first.
>> Anonymous
>>156402
Well, I'm referring to limited media in general, not photography in specific. Limited quantities of ANYTHING make it more valuable. Why do you think gold is worth more than tin?

>colour darkroom advocation is just silly at this point
Agreed.

>These days there's almost no advantage to doing anything in the darkroom if you didn't cut your teeth in one.
I wonder why they teach basic darkroom in every Photography school in the world, then? I guess you know more than Photography professors?
>> Anonymous
>>156398
>You clearly have no understanding of the art of binding & bookmaking.

I do, and while he's not technically accurate, his point is correct.

>>156400

>Yes, it does.

If a person expresses themself, what they have to say about the human condition, better with a silver halide emulsion or a digital sensor, than with some egg tempura, why does that make what they're doing any lesser.

Also, respond to the rest of the post. The important parts. Or just explain why something being exclusive is a good thing.
>> Anonymous
(con't)


>Thank God printmaking artists don't rely on people like you or all letterpresses would be out of business.

Because Coca-Cola is out of business for making their product a mass product?

The point is that all this is subjective. I'm not at all trying to invalidate what you're doing. You find yourself most comfortable in a wet darkroom. Right on. Go make some art. But please understand what you're doing is not automatically of more or less value than anyone else's art by virtue of the technical process. If someone is most comfortable with hand-made prints, right on. If someone is most comfortable with computer layout software, right on. Whatever works to best transmit the artist's personal vision.

>Well that's just flat out not true. Even ignoring the technical aspects, coming up with visually pleasing page layouts is just as much of an art as photographic composition.

>Sure, great photography and great page layout are arts, but there is no entry bar one must clear to do semi-decent digital photography & digital bookmaking. At least with darkroom/hand-binding you have to learn the basics first.

Besides the composition aspects, there's specific techniques to get the most out of digital files, just like there are techniques to get the most out of negatives. Specific ways to expose the raw file, different methods of sharpening, ways to recover blown highlights and lost shadow detail. There are entire websites dedicated to this sort of thing, digital age equivalents to Adams's "The Camera," "The Negative," and "The Print."
>> des
>>156404
>>I wonder why they teach basic darkroom in every Photography school in the world
They learned that way, so everyone else must. It's related to your "entry bar" idea.

Programmers cry bloody murder that colleges now start kids off with java instead of pascal or C. Photography will be no different when darkrooms disappear from 1st year requirements.
>> Anonymous
>>156404
>Well, I'm referring to limited media in general, not photography in specific. Limited quantities of ANYTHING make it more valuable. Why do you think gold is worth more than tin?

Monetary worth does not equal actual worth.
>> Anonymous
>>156400
Yes, photography is and will always be below painting no matter what anyone tells you. People see taking a picture as just hitting the "button" on top of the camera while as when people see a painting, they admire the hard work, dedication, and technical skill that the creator holds. Unless hes Jackson Pollock...
>> Anonymous
fee fie fo fum i smell a lot of people who haven't been to art school
>> Anonymous
>>156409
But is the painting made for someone to admire it, or get something deeper out of it than just that it's pretty?

If someone's first response to a painting is technical admiration, it's either a very bad painting or they have a very superficial view of art.
>> des
>>156411
You say that like it's a bad thing
>> Anonymous
>>156411
Yeah, sucks for Koudelka he majored in aeronautical engineering. If only he had gone to a fine art school, he'd be topping Damien Hirst, who was really so fortunate he could get a piece of paper that rubber-stamped his whims as fine art. Seriously.
>> Anonymous
>>156409
>Yes, photography is and will always be below painting no matter what anyone tells you. People see taking a picture as just hitting the "button" on top of the camera while as when people see a painting, they admire the hard work, dedication, and technical skill that the creator holds. Unless hes Jackson Pollock...

With the exception of a few greats like Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange this is unfortunately true. Photography can be much more difficult, but the public will always see it as something "I could do if I had the right tools" and not as a skill.
>> Anonymous
>>156415
hilariously, hirst is already more famous and will be the one who's remembered longer
>> des
>>156416
Good thing artists work because they need to not because of outside pressures or the want for attention, amirite?
Guys... right? fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>156416
Anyone with a piece of paper and a pen can write a novel, but that doesn't hurt their appreciation of Kerouac or Hugo.
>> Anonymous
>>156403
The UK actually has a from of classification for photographers skill level. I don't know if you have to have an exam before you get into the photography biz in the UK but but it looks damn nice to be accredited.
>> Anonymous
>>156419
>Good thing artists work because they need to not because of outside pressures or the want for attention, amirite?
>Guys... right? fuck.

Des, do you know any professional artists?
That's EXACTLY why they do what they do.
Professional art is 90% ass-kissing and self-promotion and 10% actual art.
>> Anonymous
>>156418
I don't think so. Twenty, thirty years from now, he'll be remembered, all right, as the con artist he is. Koudelka... Koudelka's reputation isn't so much now, because of the (good, creatively) way he handles his output and public profile. But I do think his fame, for whatever that's worth, will grow with time.

Look at Kafka or van Gogh, whose publicity was pretty much nonexistant during their life.
>> Anonymous
>>156426
Which is why having professional artists is as stupid as having professional clergy or professional politicians, but that's for another day.
>> Anonymous
>>156420
Again, one push of a button vs writing a book. It's all about how society perceives the arts.
>> des
>>156426
One of my best friends is a master printmaker, hasn't had a job printmaking in over a decade. He does have a patronage, but it's for his painting.
His Real Job(tm) is babysitting handicapped people for the state.
Would he be painting or printmaking if he didn't receive a cheque four times a year? Of course.

Could he be cranking out portraits and such and make a living off that? Probably. It wouldn't give him much time for his own things though.

As far as ass-kissing and self-promotion, you've only got to worry about that if you never care about leaving your county. That's what agents are for.
>> OPFOR !8vKpfCqy8A
>>156429
I wish I could be Jack Kerouac of photography, that would be pretty cool. You up for a cross country road trip heavyweather?

>>155864
It looks like you just took a picture of someone walking and photoshopped it.
>> Anonymous
>>156431
>I wish I could be Jack Kerouac of photography

Robert Frank already kinda staked that out. Even got Kerouac to write the forward.
>> Anonymous
>>156430
>One of my best friends is a master printmaker, hasn't had a job printmaking in over a decade. He does have a patronage, but it's for his painting.

How sad. Letterpress is hot shit right now. He must not be very good at marketing his work.

>As far as ass-kissing and self-promotion, you've only got to worry about that if you never care about leaving your county. That's what agents are for.

LULZ. Agents = part of the equation.
You still have to suckle the cocks of gallery owners, schmooze with writers, etc etc.
>> Anonymous
>>156427
>I don't think so. Twenty, thirty years from now, he'll be remembered, all right, as the con artist he is. Koudelka... Koudelka's reputation isn't so much now, because of the (good, creatively) way he handles his output and public profile. But I do think his fame, for whatever that's worth, will grow with time.
>Look at Kafka or van Gogh, whose publicity was pretty much nonexistant during their life.

mass media + internet has changed everything. we will never have another unknown artist like van Gogh.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156437
You know, if she were around nowadays, Emily Dickinson would probably have a LiveJournal.
>> Anonymous
OP here.

Holy shit I'm gone for like 8 hours and you guys have an in-depth discussion of photoshop vs darkroom. I didn't think /p/ would move that fast.

Weird. Anyway, thanks again for the helpful comments.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>156469
/p/ speeds up for flamewars.
>> Anonymous
>>156469
hey op can se see the original of your first image?
i'd like to see it side-by-side with the edit so i can really appreciate/understand the changes you've made.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>156476
Hmmm, point taken.

Also, just for kicks, here's another shot.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-N1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:08 17:13:31Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating64Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.90 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height800