tommyfilmist

you lack wits take great pride in showing off your lack of fore thought and basic reasoning skills which seem to be at the "hey i ordered a cup of coffee, spilled it on myself, got burned now i am sueing mcdonalds for my injuries because im not smart enough to realize hot coffee can burn me"

but re its better to just open the film cartridge with a can opener

its a study on opinion in the hunt of a dark room window covering

macro still life doesnt work well with full size objects d''art

im not trying to get anyone to give me a damned aperture setting, im trying to see how many others can figure out how the fancy blinds are blocking light when they arent.

what blocks more light guys. the vinyl blind with crappy plastic rod opener,, or the big fancy custom light blocking blind rated to block "98% of all light" by the maker?

ye ah, give me 10 minutes, and a country plow truck and well get lots of good road rage footage.

went through the gallery, and in the last few days "all time" setting is the same as "previously year" in every subject gallery. fine art, glamour, portrait, food, architecture... etc finally doing some improvements? Also why so many full nude photos outside of the nude subject gallery? strange as to find nude women showing their "fun bits" in the food category

creating an in camera multiple exposure takes skill, and is a bitch.. yet the main selling point of most digital editing programs is "a seemless, AI/graphics engine run algorthm that will insert any background into the photo you want.." Hell, even the widdle low end photoshop express claims to have the capability of taking a photo of anyhuman with a closed eye, and replacing the closed eye/s with an open eye from any photograph you posess. and to do it seamlessly. why not have the person OPEN their eyes instead for a photo

An example of why you dont just believe everyone on the internet. Its like the old joke from the 90s... 4 out of 5 18 year old guys on them chat forums be 45-60 year old guys in momma's basement

What actually is photoshop EXPRESS... comes included with windows 10 updates and well it wants a user login, and when i try to search it online all roads lead to it being adobe photoshop standard version with the 20$ monthly usage fee.. yet windows tells me this Adobe Photoshop Express version 3.6.385.0 App 47.7 MB definitely NOT the full version

evening news LOVES showing pictures of bloated bodies on the beach, loves showing photos of people executed in Ukraine and everywhere else like coca cola loves putting its logo on everything. Your just doing what national geographic does and even fly fisherman does.. any bird magazine... etc.

Joc ken, im afraid you have not understood the concept. Although i admit i havent bothered following the post, real life, looking at tripods, checking on photo software, etc. Important things first you know. 1. I dont believe you READ that qoute... if you read the qoute youd read it as it was written, although i will emphasize it in its parts. that said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you ACTUALLY need to know about how to use your camera. That quote came from a person defending the use of photoshop and other editing programs to deal with things that a sane person can deal with at the time of shooting, whether making an alteration to the camera settings regardless of digital or film, controlling the angle of the shot or using hoods and CPL and ND filters to allow a shot to be made in the first place. That qoute more or less relates to the majority of people who leave the camera cotrol dial set to AE and just use the photoshop AI to batch process their 400 shots of a cup of coffee in the hope one shot will be good enough for their instagram. 2. Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography. That is a sell out of the use of photoshop to replace entire parts of photos because "ansel adams did it in the darkroom, its perfectly fine to do with photoshop now". Im not against editing, merely against the creation of digitally imagery. Yeah, you want a picture of your girlfriend in a bikini and want to make her look like ariel complete with tail. Well simply be an adult and get a mermaid costume that has a tail and go with it. Far easier and cheaper then spending an hour cut and pasting a picture of a fish tale on your girlfriends photo.. Or better yet if you want to combine a photo of yourself on a mounted cliff edge with a sunset in the background, simply why the hell cant you take the photo AT sunset,, instead of combine a photo of you standing on that ledge at high noon, with one you take the same day at that same spot of the sunset?

creativity does indeed need some originality to it. Truly, if a person can write, why not be creative and create their own world.. instead of just doing star wars fan fiction story 94.679 million? Why do yet another clone of the most popular vogure or harpers bazaar photo cover portraits? If one has the ability to DO,, why COPY all others? If your idea or concept of originality is in doing what the PPA says to do, "follow the curent trends to stay competitive and relevant", why even BOTHER? Your doing neither of those things by copying everyone else.

still a violation on the wife, and man of the house.. and a violation of good taste. It also raises a few points that people wandering the property are up to no good. Sort of like the strange dude who buys a trampoline and lets all the 6 too 16 year old girls and boys play on it

I was on another forum, and despite not being a member, and having blocked their email addresses, I keep getting link emails from them. I was bored and clicked on one that turns out was interesting. First i shall post excerpts from that thread dealing with photography and editing That said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you need to know about how to use your camera. Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography. Creating a photo isn't simply taking a picture. That first image is just the beginning of the process. Often when new photographers realize their work is no were near the quality of others they conclude the others must be "cheating."

l Copying what someone else is doing isnt getting OUT of my own way, its getting IN my way. What point is there.. yeah sure it might look cutesy for a moment, but why the big push for conformity in order to "stand out"

Your liberal leanings an learnings suck.. It doesnt matter if THEY have the nerve to create a false back story to a photo. People do that all the time. Its like the old hamilton versus sally versus sturges debate... hamilton is called porn now,, but the other two are called "art" even though Hamilton used models that were of legal age and actually consented to be photographed.. unlike the other two.

What ever you say S am S tevens... lovely initials

that data was from one of the retailers talking about the product or the maker, its been a while, i dont use rodinal myself. but that was for regular developing in a tank

it all depends on the tank.. if i read the manufacturer website correctly, all tanks require 5ml per roll, OR 5ml per tank. either way.... its a one shot. although does reusing rodinal make it more of a stand development scenario?

You debase photography.. it IS a photograph as the scanner is technically a digital camera... the debate is no longer what a phtograph IS,, but a debate of is a photograph an actual photograph or image, when someone uses photo editing to change every single part of a scanned or digital photo.. ie if someone takes a high noon shot of a person in tempe arizona at a gas station, and uses photoshop crap to make it a picture of a person standing next to a venetian gondola, on pavement, with an african skyline at DUSK for a background, is it a photo or an IMAGE

no, on photography forums its more of a situation of the more people can qoute in the realms of technical skills, or technical science, the less they can do. Many on here can spend HOURS discussing and debating the meaning of say kodak technical report 19 of june 3, 1949, and know the science of each facet of that report, and how to debunk it with modern science, but yet lack the ability to put a CPL on a lens and take a photo of something in a window to get rid of a reflection.

if youd look at the stats for pn.... youd probably see 1,000 people on the site on any given day, but maybe 10 people creating or replying to a thread... and those people would be the only ones doing so for a week.

That is merely proof that photo.net is like anyother forum website.