Photoshop done by the Pros

Yeah, image manip's are great fun. They're especially good manips, but you'd be surprised how much stuff now has had atleast a couple of minuites in photoshop, in an attempt to make a bad picture good.

I've tried my hand at airbrushing some of my dads stock photos (he's a photographer), I've been doing it a while now (since I was 8...).

I guess my love of photoshop comes from there, hehe.
 
I love what digital imaging can do...FOR SURE!

But in this age, I find that my film camera and my darkroom are all I need to satisfy my imaging desires.

Less perfection is more...Real.
Grit is good too. Makes you actually feel something just by looking at it.
 
They Destroyed Jessica Biels Butt!

Edit: I also like how they make every chick thinner and make their boobs bigger. [sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
They're a Photo toutch up company. They remove imperfections in images because sometimes its impossible to get a good pictiure. They remove stuff like wrinkles in clothing, stray hair, shadows, ect. They also smooth out skin feautures, because the photos are shot with extreemly powerfull digital cameras now, which will pick up even a speck of dust on a persons face and make it visible.
 
Sneakypants said:
But in this age, I find that my film camera and my darkroom are all I need to satisfy my imaging desires.
Click to expand...
I don't know, film and darkroom are just not really practical. You have no immediate feedback whether your shot was any good. When going digital you get that, you can discard shitty stuff right there, and you don't need to develop an image (time & money) just to see whether it is any good even once you are back at home looking at it using a digital lighttable.

Analog film is doomed, there are reasonably priced full frame digital SLRs out there, and they will only get cheaper or better in time.
 
only started playing with photoshop when blabj told me about it before that i was on serif making cartoons with the help of 2d desgin toke ages doing frame by frame and 10 frames was just under 1 second of cartoon and most cartoons went on for 3-5mins XD
 
Analog film will never die!! Analog film will always have a better picture compared to a digital camera. Although now the digital cameras are so advanced, its very hard to distinguish the pictures from what type of camera it came from. I chose analog for big shots (potraits larger than 11 x 14). Digital cameras at that size or larger has this fuzzy effect to it (using a Canon EOS Rebel 7.2 mp). Both types are good mediums to use. My only suggestion to people is to ask them, what will be your primary use for the camera? They usually say digital, for its ease of use. I'm not bashing either one, in fact many respectable photo mags won't accept a digital print. Beside you can always blow up you film as big as you want, and not lose any details. It looks the same as it was on smaller print. The drawback...if not taken care of (negative) colors fade, digital doesn't. They each have their faults and pros. Just a matter of your preference. I personally like my film SLR over my digital, then again, I also take time to decided what I will be shooting. Matter of what you like, kinda like women...do you like em fat...or skinny? Whatever choice you make, you can't win em all.
 
Sculli said:
I don't know, film and darkroom are just not really practical. You have no immediate feedback whether your shot was any good. When going digital you get that, you can discard shitty stuff right there, and you don't need to develop an image (time & money) just to see whether it is any good even once you are back at home looking at it using a digital lighttable.

Analog film is doomed, there are reasonably priced full frame digital SLRs out there, and they will only get cheaper or better in time.
Click to expand...


Not saying you are one of these people, and no offense, but I HATE when digi-folks try to push their products.

Q: A 500 RWHP sports car, with barely any room and eats gas is practical compared to an AWD 200 HP car with room and decent gas efficiency how?
A: It's not. It's obvious which is practical and which is fun.

...See how I arrived at my statement?


Some things are fun. Some are practical. Some are both.
When you want all fun, you don't want something that is practical or even only partly fun...You want fun.

I agree, and you can see from my CAPS in my OP, that digi is way better for certain things. ANYTHING relating to shooting for a job should involve a digi. It's simply a billion times more practical despite any discussion about variables involved in picture quality. Not knocking quality in any way, btw...Digi is amazing these days. Still it's like audio recording, in that analog and digital will always be different animals.

However, for fun and enjoyment, for an enriching feeling of accomplishment and feeling like I am getting my hands dirty, I still like film. I like loading film, shooting an image perfectly the first time so all I have to do is print the full image, being in complete darkness and prying open the film canister, loading it blindly onto my development reel and placing it in the tank. It's an interesting process to me. I like mixing my own chemicals and preparing the paper trays and baths. I like holding the tongs in my hands and pushing my print around as I watch it come into existence. I like hanging them out to dry, framing them, and finding a home for them on the walls of my home. I enjoy the real, physical, tangible creation process that I am 100% involved in every step of the way.

"Painting with light"???
I do that, and plenty more in the darkroom.
Clicking the buttons on a mouse and seeing the result doesn't satisfy me one bit. I completely apreciate the practicality of it, however. I also understand that there is a LOT of talent and understanding involved to master that, and I do consider it an art form...Separate from photography, aside from the actual snapping of the original image.

Digi guys make good points regarding "their" form of imaging, but each time they speak to me they create something of a sore spot for me, as it seems they just try to push another film guy along and get him to join the dark side. Why is all that necessary? I swear EVERY time I utter film anywhere near a digi guy, they are compelled to tell me about the world I am "missing out on". ROFL. That comes off quite absorbed. Again, I'm not saying that's what YOU are doing here, but it's coming down the same pipe. Perhaps my intents with film weren't mentioned. But do they always have to be? Telling my story about film sure grows tiresome.
I prefer to let me pictures speak for themselves.

What of pinhole photography and other methods that focus on the format or the equipment or the process rather than practicality?
Digis tend to ignore fun, sacrificing it all for practicality. To me, that's ok for something that calls for practicality. But I got into photography for fun. If that ever changes for me, then it's just not worth it any more.
 
because I'm stupid... after reading this and showing my friend... a discussion ensued which resulted in this observation by me =o

boobies.gif
 
Arctyrael said:
because I'm stupid... after reading this and showing my friend... a discussion ensued which resulted in this observation by me =o

boobies.gif
Click to expand...


LOL. This is a perfect example of a value add. ^^
 
lol, I had to post it. The debbil made me do it. The before and after pictures fit this description perfectly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top