movingfinger

So in other words it Photo.Net with a different name and URL.

I enjoyed the video, nice humor. I'm pretty sure the 'picture' being referred to here is a full length motion picture, Scorsese's claim to fame. Folks in the film industry do refer to their work simply as a 'picture.' The segment at 1:06 suggests this is an ad for American Express at the Tribeca Film Festival. Still, the photographs and Scorsese's comments on them are worth pondering, seriously. 🙂

Yes the discussion after the original post has gone way in that direction (although no one mentioned photoshops new "generative fill" so far). I started the thread only to point out an article written back in the 80's when digital was in its early infancy for people to read and see what was originally envisioned - at least by some folks - and to compare to what the reality is today. It is always fun to compare predictions of the future with the actual ensuing reality. NGs mild, innocent, tweak from back then shows their underestimation of just how pernicious and serious digital 'tweaks' could and would become (did I mention photoshop's "generative fill"?). Oh well, we all must play the hand we're dealt when we are dealt it and play it to our own standards. I don't see any absolute right or wrong in this matter, even for documentary and/or journalistic photography - my key escape adjective here being 'absolute'.

Street Scene, Washington DC, 1975

I tried to find more information regarding this alteration but did not come across any (not that I looked all that hard). I did find the cover photograph and it was good although to me it had an HDR look that made it appear almost artificial. In any case, I don't think I agree with you. If the "great photo" as taken could not to be on the cover for whatever reason, then sorry but it shouldn't be on the cover. Could it have been on the inside, unaltered with the swear words? I guess the "well intentioned" was to get a dramatic saturated color photograph relating to BLM on the cover that displayed the artistry and good intentions of the BLM protesters.

Knowing what we know now about how photography has evolved in the digital age it interesting to look back and be reminded (for those of us who were alive back then) or to be introduced to how it was perceived and what was predicted back in the early years. Here is an NYT Mag article from 1984, Photography's New Bag of Tricks. I was surprised to see in the article that National Geographic Magazine digitally altered a cover photograph in 1982. I had always considered NGM a stickler for unaltered photography. If you don't read the article here's the section about NGM cover:

In a surprising (to me) ruling the Supreme Court essentially ruled against Warhol. The decision made strange bedfellows among the justices and it is a limited ruling (so the copyright waters are more muddied). You can read details here.

I made a self-published book on blurb and I was very pleased with the results. I used lightroom to create the book and just shipped the result to blurb. I did go with the highest quality paper. You can see the resulting book, which has both color and BW images, on the blurb website as I make the entire thing preview-able. On my screen the images look like they do in the finished paper publication. You can find it here and see for yourself, click on 'preview'.

As a follow-up to my lament above, I'm happy to report that historic DPReview content won't be unavailable going forward, efforts are underway to archive the content and keep it available to the general public: DPReview is being archived

That's what I heard too and I don't understand. What will happen to this wealth of content? It has, if nothing else, historical significance. If I google for camera reviews of the Nikon D800 say, will I no longer get the DPR review showing up? Is all this information to be lost? Can some independent hosting site offer to take over the content and keep it on line or is Amazon asserting that if they can't (won't) do it then they won't let anyone else do it either?

This little exchange above made me chuckle. Reminds me of the old "How does one get to Carnegie Hall", one way is "Practice, practice, practice", the other is "Take the F train and get off at 57th street."

See this report: Fujifilm Warning

Back a few decades when everyone purchased the image 'sensor' independently of the actual camera, ISO was not simply an independent setting per shutter click. The ISO came hardwired (no pun here) into the purchased sensor which was called 'film'. Here's a fun, and, for those born in the present century, educational, video on how film manufacturers tried to simplify camera functions for the masses, in particular the ISO setting: Clever Camera Code