From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Stuck Filters
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Stuck Filters
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:54:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <071120172254470188%nospam@nospam.invalid>
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> <071120172018045993%nospam@nospam.invalid> <fb2dnZSTmK_l5p_HnZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0cb115049855d001c3c3e1a0bb9eeaac";
logging-data="3411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FPFUZXWsOTYd+eidYy04n"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N9PWQVrV4orQnQodwbiYlo6J5ZQ=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<fb2dnZSTmK_l5p_HnZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@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.
> > 
> > now you know.
> > 
> > <https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/dodge-burn-image-areas.html&...
> >    The Dodge tool and the Burn tool lighten or darken areas of the
> >    image. These tools are based on a traditional darkroom technique for
> >    regulating exposure on specific areas of a print.
> 
> Says nothing about that actual visceral actions used in
> the process ...back in the day.

instead of moving cardboard, it's moving a mouse or stylus. big deal.

what it doesn't say is it has a major advantage of being able to
instantly undo anything, versus having to redo the entire print in a
darkroom.

dodge/burn is also incredibly primitive and imprecise, but back in the
day, there weren't very many other options. now there are.