Digital BW, The Print

on 7/27/2002 3:16 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>> I saw the three photos you put up.  I would have added a catch light in
>> the child's eyes in the first picture, it would really improve it, IMHO,
>> of course.
> 
> I take it you don't do much child photography...that shot was natural light,
> in a crowded store...and when photographing a 1.5 year old child, you simply
> can't ask him to "hold it" and wait until someone gets out their handy dandy
> catch light to "get it right".  You've got .5 seconds to take the picture...
> And, BTW, he does have brown eyes, and, much to my delight, the pupils are
> distinguishable in the original scan (as well as in the 12 x 12 print we
> have on the wall upstairs).


Austin,

You'll hate me for this but, I almost always ADD FAKE CATCH LIGHTS in
photoshop when necessary. It does amazing things to the eyes!
 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

> Austin...I almost always ADD FAKE CATCH LIGHTS in
> photoshop when necessary. It does amazing things to the eyes!

Bruce, I'm sure it does...it makes the subject look possessed ;-)

------------------------ Yahoo Groups Sponsor -----------------
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
Yes!! The word gullible really has been removed from new dictionaries
---------------------------------------------------------------


Hello

I'm finding the image manipulation 'debate' quite interesting in some areas,
even if only to reassure me that I'm not unduly picky -sometimes-  I'm never
sure quite how much I want to do with an image, but given it is to recreate
-my- impressions of a scene - it varies from very little to some serious
curves. Oh, and once I removed a small building from a distant hillside,
purely because it irritated me...

bye for now   

Keith Cooper 


PS One useful thing I've found to be very easy in PhotoShop is to add that
black edge you get on prints sometimes, when you mis-register the mask ...
sort of gives the impression that you were able to use the whole negative
:-)) :-)) :-))

I consider curve manipulation to be just fine; you are really only
compensating for limitations of film or digital capture, in most cases.
However, I draw the line at retouching things out of existence, for the most
part.  I only did it once, to remove a railing that was so obtrusive that
you couldn't see the objects I was trying to document, but that was a pretty
extreme case.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Cooper" <yahoogroups@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:12
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: d 60 or maniputlating photos: good or bad?


> Hello
>
> I'm finding the image manipulation 'debate' quite interesting in some
areas,
> even if only to reassure me that I'm not unduly picky -sometimes-  I'm
never
> sure quite how much I want to do with an image, but given it is to
recreate

> -my- impressions of a scene - it varies from very little to some serious
> curves. Oh, and once I removed a small building from a distant hillside,
> purely because it irritated me...
>
> bye for now
>
> Keith Cooper
>
>
> PS One useful thing I've found to be very easy in PhotoShop is to add that
> black edge you get on prints sometimes, when you mis-register the mask ...
> sort of gives the impression that you were able to use the whole negative
> :-)) :-)) :-))

> 
> PS One useful thing I've found to be very easy in PhotoShop is to 
add that
> black edge you get on prints sometimes, when you mis-register the 
mask ...
> sort of gives the impression that you were able to use the whole 
negative
> :-)) :-)) :-))

I have several other favourite effects apart from the fake full neg. 
frame. Fake cross process, fake infra-red, fake brush stroke.

Garry Sarre