Re: Actual photograph

From: Jamie Young ^lt;>
Date: 03/18/05-05:33:14 PM Z
Message-id: <>

It seems as though people assume that the digital file from the camera
is what you end up with, but the jpeg or raw file almost always needs
to be adjusted to be interpreted properly. The beginning file is like a
negative, and has to be adjusted to fit the paper contrast, and color
corrected, etc.
  I often "dodge and burn" a bit too (using masks, selections, curves
and saturation). If a traditional negative is machine printed, it
often tends to look mediocre, compared to a well made custom print.
It's not really much different for digital. Our interpretation of
whatever medium we chose to use is what makes the difference. Photoshop
cs already does have the plug in - it's the raw file converter, but
you have to make the decisions on how you wan the photo to look. Many
digital shots tend to need the contrast adjusted to fill the working
space. If they look flat and dull, that' s because this hasn't been
  Jamie Young
On Mar 18, 2005, at 9:27 AM, ericawd wrote:

> A number of years ago, I worked at a local television station.  They
> decided at one point to buy a "chip" camera, (read "going digital".) 
> The production department was gathered together to view the two
> finalists.  One camera had very good fidelity, however, the image was
> pretty lifeless.  The other's fidelity was not quite as good, but the
> picture was "prettier" and more painterly.  It was if one had been
> designed strictly by a technician and the other had been sent to an
> artist for a final tweaking.  
> Maybe Photoshop 1000.5 will have a plug-in for the different brands of
> cameras.  The bottom line is that photography is/was what first Kodak
> and Nikon, lately Epson, Samsung and Nikon, says it is, resistance is
> futile.  (That is what I like about the term "post factory".)
> Candace Spearman  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack Fulton
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Actual photograph
> I
> Joe's (& others) description/lament is sweet albeit romantic and
> perhaps Ludditic at
> its core but there is a lot to agree with.
> Yet, though film is disappearing, the digital camera is improving. Is
> not Nikon coming
> out w/something like 13, 14 or more mpxls ASAP? Yeup, four grand or
> more. Too much,
> but pro cameras were and still are up toward the stratosphere.
> Re materials and attitudes, when I introduced color to our curriculum
> in the 70's other
> classes did not wish to crit the work for they felt it wasn't
> photography. You'll remember
> Frank's dictum that "B/W is the COLOR of photography". Now color is
> darned near de
> rigeur.
> .
Received on Fri Mar 18 17:49:56 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST