Jump to content

Casual Photo Conversations


A place to discuss things that do not seem belong anywhere else!  Please observe the posted rules.

Please post any site related matters to the Help board by clicking on this link.


16,469 topics in this forum

    • 0 replies
    • 6.6k views
    • 14 replies
    • 197 views
  1. Beginner's thread?

    • 2 replies
    • 72 views
    • 0 replies
    • 45 views
    • 7 replies
    • 213 views
    • 16 replies
    • 220 views
    • 8 replies
    • 281 views
    • 13 replies
    • 216 views
    • 14 replies
    • 1.2k views
    • 3 replies
    • 91 views
    • 7 replies
    • 168 views
  2. How Long Will It last?

    • 21 replies
    • 1.4k views
    • 2 replies
    • 100 views
    • 11 replies
    • 1.1k views
  3. Digital photo projectors

    • 12 replies
    • 284 views
    • 3 replies
    • 153 views
  4. Fan Ho

    • 20 replies
    • 567 views
    • 7 replies
    • 207 views
  5. ¡Wow!

    • 13 replies
    • 457 views
    • 6 replies
    • 178 views
  6. New Pentax film cameras

    • 9 replies
    • 251 views
    • 1 reply
    • 152 views
    • 31 replies
    • 881 views
    • 9 replies
    • 285 views
    • 5 replies
    • 226 views
  • Recent Gallery Images

  • Recent Forum Wide Posts

    • The image just posted is (in my browser) displayed as 828 wide x 793 tall. In the first positive version posted, I think there's a dark stripe at the top that has been included. They've cropped the bottom and anti-cropped the top: included some of the black gap between frames in the scan. I think that would be enough to throw out auto settings of colour densities, wouldn't it?
    • There is only one orientation possible. The film must be positioned with its length running in the '7' direction, as it is in the camera. And in any case a 6x6cm frame will fully show in a rectangular 6x7cm carrier, no matter which way round it's fitted, because it's square. 
    • If you want to falsely believe it's magic Joe, go for it*.  It's a new(er) kind of image editing. It has a name, many dozens of software vendors (those who supply raw processors) use it, it's not destructive and it has a name: Parametric editing.  If you want to go to the ASMP site provided, or suggest to Peter Krogh who wrote that article for the ASMP several decades ago, your new name  'non-permanent' is more appropriate, again, go for it Joe; seems you have a lot of time on your hands to try changing the industry. As for whe way you assume most people work (instead of speaking just for your own workflow), might I suggest: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."-Bertrand Russell Undo in History isn't non destructive editing! It's undoing, there's no edit applied. Layers are not non destructive editing either. You want to print the document, you want to save it as a TIFF or JPEG to upload or present that to someone outside of Photoshop's handling of layers, you have to flatten it. It isn't non destructive! Parametric editing is, completely non destructive because you want to believe its magic. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.   *"Tell people that there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
    • Most sites have a built-in spam protector whereby new members can't post until they've uploaded x number of photos or been approved in some way. While this is a reasonable after-the-fact solution, a before-the-fact solution, in my opinion, would be optimal.
×
×
  • Create New...