Agree or disagree? (Page 25): to equate pushing and pulling film during development and dodging and burning with digital post processing is laughable. all one needs do is look at the...

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

sirlensalot wrote:

I believe out hit upon the heart of the value of PP, be it with a mouse or in th darkroom. Great post.

to equate pushing and pulling film during development and dodging and burning with digital post processing is laughable. all one needs do is look at the Associated Press' severed relationship with the Pulitzer Award photographer, for removing a section of image. this does not happen with film. as again, the negative is the final arbiter.

so, nice try, folks. comparing computer programs to chemicals in a developing tank!

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

wj cody wrote:

to equate pushing and pulling film during development and dodging and burning with digital post processing is laughable. all one needs do is look at the Associated Press' severed relationship with the Pulitzer Award photographer, for removing a section of image. this does not happen with film. as again, the negative is the final arbiter.

so, nice try, folks. comparing computer programs to chemicals in a developing tank!

:thumbup: :thumbup:

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Racmanaz wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup:

You and cody are wrong again altering a negative , while not an easy job is certainly possible and has been done many times. Bleach, pencils, etc. are just some of the items used.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

cheineck wrote:

You and cody are wrong again altering a negative , while not an easy job is certainly possible and has been done many times. Bleach, pencils, etc. are just some of the items used.

Nope, you are still wrong. That was usually done for commercial purposes not by the average person, with some very few exceptions. Give it up son. :)

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Racmanaz wrote:

Nope, you are still wrong. That was usually done for commercial purposes not by the average person, with some very few exceptions. Give it up son. :)

No, not wrong, as even accepted and endorsed by your reply. And yes, it was mostly done for commercial reasons. How does that negate the fact that it WAS done? And I am certainly not your "son". Your replies are very condescending, usually incorrect, and confused. Additionally, your continuing references to "God" as in "God Bless You Anyway", have no place in these forums as I am sure God is more interested in more important things than justifying your plea for his support in mundane subjects. I'm sure a simple "Thanks for your opinion" or such would please Him more than the use of His name. Thanks.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

cheineck wrote:

No, not wrong, as even accepted and endorsed by yo... (show quote)

Continuing reference to "God"??? LOL haven't even said that in the past few posts lol. I can and will use "God bless you" anytime I am pleased, you don't like it then don't read it...simple as that. God has a place everywhere whether you like it or not. You are still wrong anyway...we will just have to agree to disagree....have a nice day....I will allow you to have the last work, because that's the kind or man I am. :)

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Racmanaz wrote:

Continuing reference to "God"??? LOL haven't even said that in the past few posts lol. I can and will use "God bless you" anytime I am pleased, you don't like it then don't read it...simple as that. God has a place everywhere whether you like it or not. You are still wrong anyway...we will just have to agree to disagree....have a nice day....I will allow you to have the last work, because that's the kind or man I am. :)

Your words "haven't even said that in the past few posts lol" proves my point. You disregard my reply regarding imaging and go on to mention God. Did it ever occur to you that His place is not in photography forums?

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

wj cody wrote:

to equate pushing and pulling film during development and dodging and burning with digital post processing is laughable. all one needs do is look at the Associated Press' severed relationship with the Pulitzer Award photographer, for removing a section of image. this does not happen with film. as again, the negative is the final arbiter.

so, nice try, folks. comparing computer programs to chemicals in a developing tank!

It is still a form of PP.

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

sirlensalot wrote:

It is still a form of PP.

:) :) :) :) :)

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

sirlensalot wrote:

It is still a form of PP.

nope. post processing refers to computerisation processes. while negatives may be bleached, spotted and tinted, the CONTENT of the negative is not changed. and so, the baseline remains; unlike digital which has no baseline, unless you are a law enforcement agent using one of the modified cameras which enters a code on the image, to ensure credibility as evidence.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

wj cody wrote:

nope. post processing refers to computerisation processes. while negatives may be bleached, spotted and tinted, the CONTENT of the negative is not changed. and so, the baseline remains; unlike digital which has no baseline, unless you are a law enforcement agent using one of the modified cameras which enters a code on the image, to ensure credibility as evidence.

Nope, you are incorrect on that one, and it is still PP but perhaps by another name. I do get a kick out of the "except" part though. lol

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

sirlensalot wrote:

Nope, you are incorrect on that one, and it is still PP but perhaps by another name. I do get a kick out of the "except" part though. lol

the "except" part only applies to law enforcement. so, we will just have to disagree on this.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

wj cody wrote:

the "except" part only applies to law enforcement. so, we will just have to disagree on this.

No problem. I am pretty sure we are not the first, nor the last to see things differently. lol

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

cheineck wrote:

Your words "haven't even said that in the past few posts lol" proves my point. You disregard my reply regarding imaging and go on to mention God. Did it ever occur to you that His place is not in photography forums?

So we let in [insert name of member who was banned for atrocious behavior], but we don't let God in? What about those of us who do believe God is everywhere, but do not engage in proselytizing. Are we to be criticized for occasionally saying, "God bless you"? Can we not, for example, say that to active participants of NILMDTS? That is, after all, a photographic organization occasionally mentioned on this forum.

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Mogul wrote:

So we let in [insert name of member who was banned for atrocious behavior], but we don't let God in? What about those of us who do believe God is everywhere, but do not engage in proselytizing. Are we to be criticized for occasionally saying, "God bless you"? Can we not, for example, say that to active participants of NILMDTS? That is, after all, a photographic organization occasionally mentioned on this forum.

Of course you can say "God Bless You" But our "poster" was using that phrase to avoid coherent replies to questions posed. God is not an excuse, God is the answer and this is not the forum to discuss religion.