From: Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Stuck Filters
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:20:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Stuck Filters
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
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>
<071120172254470188%nospam@nospam.invalid>
From: Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net>
Organization: Say what?
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 23:20:11 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <071120172254470188%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 171107-0, 11/07/2017), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Message-ID: <d6OdnUFKR8FiGJ_HnZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 51
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KWhjNG0LLkn9Nc2dGjfkOmgJKSoCSn9OpjayeTQgZcqiFYftwRrceNENEDxaJwDg5qyXkLZADuqf2Dg!THOhcC9cOnFCfzHx/QuDlpw1sRdpKfC9RvGAvMUOvpUqDuFnAZ34koAxUwfp1QYeApaDQyH3iT4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4003
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/7/2017 10:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> 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.
> 
So you're admitting that the wet darkroom analogy is flawed.
I can live with that.