I'll leave that beside your frogshit.


I'm not surprised that you did not have then, nor have now, a darkroom. It cost (and still costs) big $$$ for a darkroom with the tools needed to manipulate analog photographs.


That too is a result of transitioning from analog photography to digital photography. When a roll of 24 or 36 Kodachrome cost real money, one thought before shooting. But that's not something I miss.


That doesn't change the fact that before the digital age of photography, photograph manipulation was the domain of the professional who had invested the $$$ in the necessary tools. Now any Tom, Dick, or Harry can, and often do.


While interesting, and no doubt true, that has nothing to do with the fact that before digital photography, people rarely, if ever (you being a perfect example) manipulated their photographs. "Why" do I hear you ask? Well, I'm glad you did, because that gives me the opportunity to let you know that it was very difficult.


Congratulations, I guess.


Nonsense. Photographic evidence was routinely admitted in court, and the reason it was was because faking a photo well enough to fool the court was beyond the means of almost everyone.

Photographic evidence is still used in court! LMFAO

I didnt have one purely because i wasnt 'into' photography enough to warrent one.


I pretty sure that me getting prints done of my digital photos also costs real money *LOL*



And proper photo manipulation is still the domain of professionals who have invested in the things required to do it to the point it isnt immediately noticable or apparent. It can be quite easy to pick out when done by the normal joe


Very difficult does not equate to it was NEVER done. I never did it back then as i never had an interest in doing so.
I am however VERY much into my photography and yet still i touch the photos very little if at all. I am proud of getting a shot that doesnt need work, as are most photographers.

If a person put themselves out there as a professional, and then they need the high end equipment to make a photo worthy, they are not professional photographer they are an accomplished artist in my eyes.

Little joe trying to make there photos presentable, which the majority would be is a far cry from the amount you seem to think are around

Anyway....i'll stand by my photos have always been manipulated

I did not say it was. What it is is a broadly recognized digital picture manipulation program. The name is in the process, if not already there, of being used as a verb; "I photoshopped it".


Except that Photoshop will run acceptably on an everyday machine. *LOL*, as you say.


Hmm ... must have a very interesting Tec spec, eh?


Actually, yes, I do. Having enjoyed b/w photography for many years (why b/w & not color? Because the shades of grey in b/w pics are easier to manipulate than color, which with it's color gradients can be essentially impossible to manage well), and having used Photoshop to revise my digital pics, I am passing familiar with both technologies.


I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean I don't mourn the demise of an old friend.


That precipitous drop we all enjoy is due to the transition from analog to digital technologies.


I have found that one can do quite respectable work with some of the freebies. Windows Live Photo Gallery ships with Win7, is an example.


You are mistaken. You can do quite remarkable photo massaging with Photoshop, and the list upgrade is $200.

Here is a pic (unretouched?) of a very old friend.

And when it has been "enhanced" to improve clarity, the court will so advise the jury, as what they are being shown is not the photograph from the camera.

If the jury is not so advised, and the enhanced/retouched/massaged photographs are admitted as evidence, a conviction can be successfully appealed on that basis.

*LOL*, as you say.

A well equipped darkroom costs serious $$$.


And I'm absolutely certain that your "negatives" cost exactly nothing. Kodachrome = negatives.


You never noticed any of the revisions I've made to the pics I've posted here. Or, more precisely, you've never commented on any of them, so I assume you haven't noticed them.
*LOL*, as you say.


I don't recall saying that it was never done.


Right! Try manipulating the color gradient as the sky touches the horizon with analog equipment. Take notes and brief me on the techniques you used. Hint: try dust.


More power to you.


As well you should be.

They are both. A portrait, whether done with a paintbrush in oils, or with a good analog (film) or digital camera requires esthetic composition. Once that is done well, the tools are almost incidental.


The amount of metabolic residue masquerading as photoshopped photographs is enormously greater now that it costs next to nothing to do.


As I mentioned above, I don’t recall saying that it was never done, merely very infrequently then when compared with now.

Analogue photos? :confused: WTF??? Is that anything like the reaction of chemical film?

Pfffftttt...~I've cleaned enough shit today, cant be bothered playing with yours anymore jseal, i didnt post on it cause i really dont care if people have touched up their photos *LOL* Its their work not mine.

If however it is a competition and it states photos are not to be touched up, then damn yeah i will say something

Having not given you any, you'll need to look elsewhere for that type of entertainment.


We are all entitled to our opinions.


Quite right. Of course you should.

Sorry, but it did not take a trained professional and $$$$ of equipment. You could rent a darkroom and equipment and ANYONE who wanted to take the time could learn to manipulate the photos. I know, because I did it (for fun) in the '70s when I was in the service.

Not while in the service but :nod:.

I learned my analog tricks in high school and college.

The reason you rented that dark room, or joined and remained in the photo club was because we couldn't afford the $$$ to purchase and equip one. Photoshop et al for $200 or less is one reason that there are many times more digitally manipulated photos now than there were then. As you pointed out, "you could". The fact is, when compared with now, very few did.

As to the time it took to learn how to do the analog tricks, how many minutes did it take for you to learn how to remove objects from, and add objects to analog photos? Here is a 9-minute Photoshop tutorial to do just that. The ease with which one can digitally manipulate photographs is the other reason that there are orders of magnitude more revised/touched up/altered photographs now than there was in the past.

How did you add neon stripes to your analog photos? Here's a 1:22 Photoshop tutorial.

You were in the service for fun ? I think you made a mistake, there.

Why?

If doing your civic duty can be fun, embrace it, says I.

IF you were in my unit, yes it was fun.

That was SUPPOSE to be the unit I joined up for. :banghead:

Back to the original question. :)



I miss the days when we could go to the toilet in peace without being grilled about why we didn't answer the phone.

Obvious troll is still obvious.

The autodialers that put you on hold when you pick up THEIR call.