where is digital photography going..??

[readingr]

trog

Interesting debate. Following your though processes - did you use slide or negatives in the film days?

I see the computer being the enlarger and processing skills used with that device. I do exactly what I used to do with an enlarger, crop, levels adjustment, dodge, burn, merge two negatives to produce the final picture, and then print. I then use to clean up pictures with blade and coloured pens to get rid of dust marks... Cloning in todays tools.

No difference really in the way I use photoshop elements or Paint Shop Pro today.

I must admit I try and get the best picture straight out of the camera using lenses to hand. I spend ages composing when I have time. I still use film but don't use the dark room anymore, I scan in the negatives or slide and post process using PSE or PSP depending on the tools that I need.

So for me the work I used to do in the dark room just got easier - the original out of the camera has to be good; as it used to be in film days; otherwise no matter what post processing you do a badly composed photo will still be badly composed.

I don't think our views of photography are that far apart.

Roger

[another view]

to me the means are very important..

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - everyone just has a different opinion on what works best for them. It's always best to know how the so-called other half thinks - I was listening to a talk radio interview with someone saying that the "left" should at least occasionally listen to conservative news casts, and vice-versa. I think that's good advice.

[Ronnoco]

Incidentally for those who are familiar with graphic art, it is possible to create completely drawn (on the computer) images that are indtisinguishable from a photograph using applications like corel draw or adobe illustrator. In light of this one can view image production (including drawing, computer art and photography) as another language with which we transmit messages and ideas. nd consistently.

In my gallery, the iceberg image is totally drawn_created on computer using several programs. Part of the process was using a virtual on-screen camera to render the final image. It took a total of several hours out of two days to produce.

Interesting by the way that one of the popular magazines is Popular Photography and Imaging. They recognized long ago that the definition of photography is becoming less "focused and more blurred". (pun intended)

Ronnoco

[trog100]

"Interesting debate. Following your though processes - did you use slide or negatives in the film days?"

to be honest i found the whole 35mm film scene far to limiting to really catch my interest.. for a great number of years i simply used a point and shoot none slr camera to take my pictures.. these were converted to prints at the local photo lab..

i bought my first digicam (kodak dx3600) a few years back and was instantly hooked..

everything i had dreamed of doing but given up on years ago was suddenly possible.. from a photographic sense i was back in "business".. he he

i think i am of the school that says " the way to learn how to take pictures is to take lots of them".. no cost digital "film" suits me down to the ground.. being able to see the results instantly suits me even better..

but (the negative side..pun intended) i see the day coming where will will all have libraries of "moons" libaries of "dogs" libraries of everything..

its now possible to create entire cgi movies that have no actors and no cameras.. soon what took ronnoco "several hours out of two days" will be possible in a few minutes..

i think i know the answer to my own question already..he he

trog

[Ronnoco]

"Interesting debate. Following your though processes - did you use slide or negatives in the film days?"

its now possible to create entire cgi movies that have no actors and no cameras.. soon what took ronnoco "several hours out of two days" will be possible in a few minutes..

i think i know the answer to my own question already..he he

trog

I used slide film learning from my mother who was using the original Kodachrome II back in the late 50s. I now use slide and print film as well as digital and video.

As to cgi movies, several years ago I saw a movie from Montreal which was produced despite the actors being dead. It had Marilyn Monroe and Humphrey Bogart.

Ronnoco

[another view]

its now possible to create entire cgi movies that have no actors and no cameras.. soon what took ronnoco "several hours out of two days" will be possible in a few minutes..

Including the recent commercial from The Gap starring Audrey Hepburn...

A digital image is just a bunch of pixels, each with a numerical value assigned to it (which is displayed as the corresponding color). Photoshop doesn't care how you made the digital image - camera, scanned pen and ink drawing, etc. So I guess it is theoretically possible to make something that's indistinguishable from a photograph, but not probable.

I have seen a small web version of Ronnocco's work and it is very well done, but I had thought it was a "styled" photograph. I don't mean any offense by this; just one person's opinion. At this point, we're dealing with subtleties which I'd guess are 99% of the work. This pretty much true with photography itself, too...

[Ronnoco]

I have seen a small web version of Ronnocco's work and it is very well done, but I had thought it was a "styled" photograph. I don't mean any offense by this; just one person's opinion. At this point, we're dealing with subtleties which I'd guess are 99% of the work. This pretty much true with photography itself, too...

I understand your misunderstanding. To make things more interesting it was done on an ancient Amiga computer with 16 meg of memory, almost 30 years ago. I have never been near an iceberg in my life. As I indicated to John a while ago, I am most reluctant to display my current work in some areas on the Internet.

Ronnoco