Subject: Re: Stuck Filters
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.28.77 with SMTP id c74mr1036078itc.55.1510113020113;
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no881230itl.0!news-out.google.com!193ni494iti.0!nntp.google.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Stuck Filters
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 22:49:51 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <ottusu12lr@news4.newsguy.com>
References: <ccjsvcleg5vcdf3l0825fpkh6r9r0km3al@4ax.com>
<rb0tvchepq6vj5t7ineq6t5q995vrh9qok@4ax.com>
<3p3tvc5q9mds2j1vju6q40n86u88ms25qb@4ax.com>
<0001HW.1FAED4FD011BF2327000079342CF@news.giganews.com>
<otpvla02a2u@news7.newsguy.com>
<0001HW.1FB0D1920193246A700006E012CF@news.giganews.com>
<otqb0n0l5s@news4.newsguy.com>
<0001HW.1FB10B5201A0AD47700006E012CF@news.giganews.com>
<otstch02d2i@news4.newsguy.com>
<0001HW.1FB23B110031E64A70000C23F2CF@news.giganews.com>
<ottei502p62@news4.newsguy.com>
<fIKdndMxgZe535_HnZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<071120171841197711%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<6LGdndCoffiYxJ_HnZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p3d51678b07fdd68c4c47c6fdd1b39886dd2ffa56de2a5cf9.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <6LGdndCoffiYxJ_HnZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
X-Received-Bytes: 2571
X-Received-Body-CRC: 234630940
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/7/2017 8:08 PM, Ron C wrote:
> On 11/7/2017 6:41 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<fIKdndMxgZe535_HnZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron C
>><r.capik@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Yes, his suggestive was that I go back to an old wet darkroom method.
>>>>>> Dodge the really light areas, using black cardboard or my hands. 
>>>>>> There
>>>>>> is a lot of trial and error, but it works. After a while I got a 
>>>>>> sense
>>>>>> of how long to dodge. And with the dynamic range of my camera,
>>>>>> corrections can be made in post.
>>>>>
>>>>> When was this?
>>>>
>>>> A few years ago
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm really confused. How in the world can one use their hand
>>> or black cardboard to dodge a digital photo?
>>>
>>> None of the tools/brushes in Photoshop seem to be set up to
>>> emulate those [hand/cardboard] tools of old.
>>
>> the dodge/burn tool does exactly that.
>>
>> however, there are much better options available now.
>>
> Nothing that I know of in Photoshop emulates the actual
> physical actions of hand/cardboard dodging.
> 
> 

It's not done in PS. It's done during the initial exposure.

-- 
PeterN