[Leica] hoppys casual portrait revisited

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Hoppy showed:
Subject: [Leica] hoppys casual portrait revisited


> Folks following comment by Philippe, I've revisited this portrait.
> > I think it is an improvement.
> > Less digital Nocterising and some other tweaks.
> > When folks spot your alterations readily you've done them poorly, I 
> > think.
> > I shall leave the original up for a short while in case anyone would 
> > like to compare.
> > <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hoppyman/analog/family/Casual+_portrait_+ver+2.jpg.html>

> http://tinyurl.com/g27yd<<<

Hoppy,
I haven't got a clue what Philippe was talking about, but obviously he has a 
far better eye and screen size to find anything wrong with the original 
posted picture.

When it came on screen first time I figured.... "Very nice quick casual shot 
well done Hoppy!" That was it! A cool photograph.

Nothing wrong with it! Now yer screwing around with it because of this whole 
digital crap thing . One question........

"How does a print look, say 11X17? Now a print, not the screen, hold it at 
the correct viewing distance for that size and ask yourself, " is this a 
good photograph?" You can't come back with anything else but... "Yep neat 
picture!" period

Never mind looking for all the "effects things." Then show it to a few 
people who don't have a clue about digital smigital and ask them what they 
think as a print? And a photograph?

Then come back and tell us your findings.

I'm giving a lecture next week about digital and what the hell it's doing.. 
title?

"Ease up on the number effects and come back to photography!"

And right here with your photo is a prime example of what's happening 
supposedly making it better. Or whatever the hell people try to do, rather 
than having a neat picture and leave it alone. Sure we all make "digital 
adjustments" that are simple and straight forward. Mine are 99% whatever 
happens on "Automatic!" ;-) If I don't like it, I change it, but dang few 
times.

 You've got a photograph entitled "Casual portrait", looks good on the 
screen without question when I saw it the first time. Whether you had messed 
with it before the first posting who cares because it looked fine. In other 
words what people don't know doesn't matter, do they like the finished 
product and will they pay you for it! Very handsomely! ;-)

So I'm surprised what all the extra back and forth is about and why you're 
still fiddling with a fine picture. I've gone back and forth a couple dozen 
times trying to see what's wrong with the first posting compared to whatever 
you did on the re-post?

One thing without question with digital, I'm lumping everything from camera, 
printer, the fixing up and how people look at finished prints into one pot! 
It appears to be constantly floundering far more about numbers and special 
corrective effects rather than the content and how good the photograph 
itself is!!

I know there'll be all kinds of re-butts, however I'm getting truly fed-up 
with people who do nothing but constantly talk numbers and never appear to 
be looking at how beautiful the photograph is.

Sure it's a learning curve for all of us, as wet tray was. Or maybe it's me 
not getting the usual darkroom dose of fresh fixer! ;-) So endth the rant? 
bit....ing"

ted