Craig Lamson Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) CLamson strikes AGAIN[...] I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my. This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that. Rules? When one understands the fine art of professional photo/film compositing, even those long, tried and true techniques, those used by newspapers and magazines, ONE doesn't have to follow *stink'in* rules. Where in the hell have you been...? <snip the none-sense> Sigh..moron healy posts again. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...not. Get with the program davie. I KNOW this stuff inside and out. You can't even offer a single film composite...so why is anyone LISTENING TO YOU AGAIN? Put your sorry butt on the line and offer YOUR limited professional opinion on the matter of reflectivity...show US you have an inkling of understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. They did teach you that during your long career shooting headshots for the local evening news right? Added on edit: I didn'nt address your mornic statement: "ONE doesn't have to follow *stink'in* rules." This truly shows you don't have a "stinkin" clue. If the results of retouching or compositing DOES NOT folow the rules of photography, light and shadow it will be easily SEEN as a fake. THE ONLY WAY FOR RETOUCHING OR COMPOSITING TO WORK IS TO FOLLOW THE RULES! Of course this is why Hollywood is SO BAD at compositing and its why most computer composites most detectable...they DONT follow the rules. Same applies to retouching..if you break the rules you get caught...and of course paint will ALWAYS look like paint, pencils have their own "look" as does bleach and dye. Of course you would know this IF you actually had any experience with it...but you don't. You have exposed yet again the depths of your ignorance on the subject davie. Edited July 6, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 Thanks, Robin. I thought that's what people were talking about. But if the pants cuff is visible, shouldn't Hill's sock also be visible? The other photo of Hill on the trunk by Justin Newman shows he was wearing black socks. Part of my confusion or inability to convince myself that it's Hill's foot comes from the fact that the area between the cuff and the sole of the shoe seems to be white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) Thanks, Robin. I thought that's what people were talking about. But if the pants cuff is visible, shouldn't Hill's sock also be visible? The other photo of Hill on the trunk by Justin Newman shows he was wearing black socks. Part of my confusion or inability to convince myself that it's Hill's foot comes from the fact that the area between the cuff and the sole of the shoe seems to be white. That's the point Craig addressed by mentioning the 'angle of light reflectivity' and how it shows up on film. Shoe leather, belts, and even dark clothing (such as a black sock) shows up as white on B&W film when being effected by light reflection. (see below) Once again ... note that Connally's face is still Connally's true image, but after the 'dodging' it appears somewhat cartoonish just as Clint Hill's foot did. Bill Miller Edited July 6, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) Craig Lamson raves on: [...] Sigh..moron healy posts again. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...not. Get with the program davie. I KNOW this stuff inside and out. You can't even offer a single film composite...so why is anyone LISTENING TO YOU AGAIN? the ONLY one that matters is YOU, you're listening Put your sorry butt on the line and offer YOUR limited professional opinion on the matter of reflectivity...show US you have an inkling of understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. They did teach you that during your long career shooting headshots for the local evening news right? Save it for the neophytes, Craigster, I contributed to a book, that's ON-THE-RECORD, you? Envy doesn't serve you well! Who would of thought you still photog's get so sensitive when talking about what others record for the masses; catalogue shooting of buses, boats, stoves and refrigerators must be real boring-- Bet you keep foam-core suppliers in business though and; This is wayout west fella, we don't shoot no stink'in headshots ******************************** 'Bill Miller' wrote: Once again ... note that Connally's face is still Connally's true image, but after the 'dodging' it appears somewhat cartoonish just as Clint Hill's foot did. you wanna run that by this old cameraman again? Who did the dodging in this photo? Are you confusing dodging with burning? Edited July 6, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 David...Miller has never dodged, burned-in or retouched a photo. I have...by the hundreds. Do not expect him to understand the technology. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) David...Miller has never dodged, burned-in or retouched a photo.I have...by the hundreds. Do not expect him to understand the technology. Jack Your track record of spotting retouching is NIL Jack. And what did you once tell me...oh yes...that you never really did any airbrush retouching ...only blowing out the backgrounds of product shots....hardly retouching photos by the hundreds.. The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it something. Craig Lamson raves on:[...] Sigh..moron healy posts again. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...not. Get with the program davie. I KNOW this stuff inside and out. You can't even offer a single film composite...so why is anyone LISTENING TO YOU AGAIN? the ONLY one that matters is YOU, you're listening Put your sorry butt on the line and offer YOUR limited professional opinion on the matter of reflectivity...show US you have an inkling of understanding of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. They did teach you that during your long career shooting headshots for the local evening news right? Save it for the neophytes, Craigster, I contributed to a book, that's ON-THE-RECORD, you? Envy doesn't serve you well! Who would of thought you still photog's get so sensitive when talking about what others record for the masses; catalogue shooting of buses, boats, stoves and refrigerators must be real boring-- Bet you keep foam-core suppliers in business though and; This is wayout west fella, we don't shoot no stink'in headshots ******************************** 'Bill Miller' wrote: Once again ... note that Connally's face is still Connally's true image, but after the 'dodging' it appears somewhat cartoonish just as Clint Hill's foot did. you wanna run that by this old cameraman again? Who did the dodging in this photo? Are you confusing dodging with burning? Wow! you contributed to a book? That makes you special how? Oh yea..it was one of Fetzers tomes...discredited before it ever hit the press....you should be so proud! Me envy a low grade news shooter? Not hardly. Video is such a second rate form of image making. But then again you are so second rate. No head shots in those down and dirty industrial training videos you shoot for the 'valley crowd" ? ROFLMAO! But hey enough about your shortcomings..ever gonna DEAL with the issues or are you just a poser? If not..well..bye bye poser. Edited July 6, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Lamson is fullaxxxx. I never told him anything about my retouching experience. I retouched hundreds of photos over 50 years as an artist. He lies. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) So, Bill, are you really stating that you think the white area of the shape purported to be a shoe is a black sock? Please look back at the Yarborough exhibit and see if this makes sense. I just took a look and it made no sense to me. Edited July 6, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 (edited) Lamson is fullaxxxx. I never told him anything aboutmy retouching experience. I retouched hundreds of photos over 50 years as an artist. He lies. Jack No Jack thats EXACLY what you told me in a long email some years ago. You even metioned wearing out 3 airbrushes "blowing out backgrounds" on product shots. You also told me how unskilled you were when it came to lighting and how your photo experience was limited to shooting small products on a table in your office with what was it...a Kodak view camera. You also told me your were considered the "top silde shooter in town" making slides on a copy stand for presentations. The rest of your limited photographic experience consists of some light darkroom work and snapshots of your locale. Not a very impressive cv if you ask me but its exactly as you told me. Now who is lying again White? But hey, post some high res scans of your "hundreds of retouched photos" and let see how good you really are..or IF you can actually retouch... BTW you can post large PNG files ( those are lossless, not like the crappy jpg's you are famous for) at www.pbase.com The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometime. Edited July 7, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 So, Bill, are you really stating that you think the white area of the shape purported to be a shoe is a black sock? Please look back at the Yarborough exhibit and see if this makes sense. I just took a look and it made no sense to me. Look, Pat ... I am not going to defend myself over a photo that is a poor quality print. What is on the original print is what is important. Contact Trask if you like and see where you can buy a good Miller print, then we will take it from there. Bill Miller David...Miller has never dodged, burned-in or retouched a photo.I have...by the hundreds. Do not expect him to understand the technology. Jack Here is the wide variety of techniques that involve photo dodging in case you have forgotten them .... Dodging is the shading of a part of the photographic paper from the projected image while making a print. http://photography.about.com/library/gloss...def_dodging.htm Dodging 'Local' control of density in photographic printing achieved by shading (using your hands, small pieces of card or various other dodging tools), therefore, ... http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossaryD-E.html Dodging - Selectively lightening part of a photo with an image editing program. Download, downloading - The process of moving computer data from one location to another. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/d...lphotography/... dodging tool from reproducing in the print, you must keep the dodging tool in constant motion during the exposure. Use a circular, sideways, or shaking movements to accomplish this. http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14...s/14209_301.htm dodging: Also called holding back; in traditional darkroom work, the hand of the developer or a piece of cardboard would be used to block light passing from the enlarger to the print, thus lessening the exposure in only specific parts of the picture. http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/... DODGING - Blocking a portion of the light when printing a photograph so that an area of the print will be made lighter. DOUBLE-EXPOSURE - Exposing the same film frame twice. A typical double-exposure shows the same subject twice in the same image. http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/1601 Dodging Holding back the image-forming light from a part of the image projected on an enlarger easel during part of the basic exposure time to make that area of the print lighter. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/gl...ry/termsD.shtml Dodging Selectively lightening part of a photo, either on an enlarger for traditional film printing or with an image editing program. The opposite to "Burning". Download ... http://www.nikonians.com/html/resources/... and dodging"Burning-in and dodging Techniques used in printing to alter the tonality of an image by darkening areas that are too light and lightening areas that are too dark. http://www.clemusart.com/exhibit/legacy/gl...y/gloss-ab.html 14. Dodging - Selectively lightening part of a photo with an image editing program. 15. Doppler - The Doppler effect (or shift) is the change in frequency of light, radio or sound waves when source and receiver are in relative motion. (1) 2 - »»» ... http://www.airviewonline.com.au/glossary/default.asp?Lt=d Dodge ( Dodging ) In photographic printing, to dodge a print is to reduce the exposure in a section of the image to make that area lighter. Compare this to the technique of burning. http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/photographic%20glossary/... It's in dodging & burning that one of the huge advantages of the f-stop method of printing starts to become apparent. Suppose you're printing a landscape and the sky needs some burning in. http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewt...ue.cfm?recid=71 Dodging and burning are both traditional ways of lightening and darkening specific areas on a photo negative. By adjusting the exposure of only a selected portion of your image, you are effectively dodging and burning your digital negative. http://www.fotofinish.com/resources/center.../edit/edit3.htm -Holding back - 1. Shortening the development time given to film to help reduce image contrast. 2. Method of decreasing exposure given to selective areas of the print. Also referred to as dodging. http://www.profotos.com/education/referencedesk/glossary/... Darkroom-like dodging, burning and other manipulations are possible and can be done without wasting large amounts of paper and chemicals until the photographer got the desired result. http://www.swmocameraclub.org/articles/pfs.html This is what is known as dodging and burning in traditional photography where a darker part of the image will be given less exposure to lighten it, relevant to its surroundings. Flash intensity can be set over 2 EV in 1 stop steps. http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Casio-P505/...P505-review.htm " Then the printers have to go back and figure out what combination of paper grade and dodging and burning will produce the combined result desired. This is the ideal working relationship. http://www.photo.net/learn/labs dodging (shading ) Means of reducing exposure in selected areas during printing by holding a solid object between the lens and the light-sensitive paper. By moving the object, abrupt changes in tone can be avoided. http://www.mich.com/~fandreae/Glossary_f.html A doubling of speed is indicated by an increase of 3 DIN. 21 DIN= 100 ASA. Dodging: A term for shading when exposing a print. http://www.jafaphotography.com/photterm.htm Topic: Photography See also: Print, Light, Image, Photo, Photograph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Lamson is fullaxxxx. I never told him anything aboutmy retouching experience. I retouched hundreds of photos over 50 years as an artist. He lies. Jack Jack, Some of these guys are bottom feeders, they haven't had a good day in a long, LONG time. Evidently lurking and post to this forum is the only pasttime they have. You suppose the Craigster is going to have a 'dry goods' portfolio lodged at a University someday? None of them, NONE of them will touch the quantity nor the quality of your work, they can't, they don't know HOW -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 David...Miller has never dodged, burned-in or retouched a photo.I have...by the hundreds. Do not expect him to understand the technology. Jack Jack, I agree, he did however post 35 websites where one can get information regarding what I already know and know how to do... chemically and digitally... Maybe the Craigster will give the uniformed a lesson regarding the fine points of dodging and burning, I suspect he won't need Miller's website referrals, it should however keep him busy while he waits for our next post - what say, Craig? Few examples from you wouldn't hurt, take the heat of of Bill dealing with the issue and show what kind of expertise you might have -- bet only a few around here know what you do, time to get on the record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 (edited) David...Miller has never dodged, burned-in or retouched a photo. I have...by the hundreds. Do not expect him to understand the technology. Jack Jack, I agree, he did however post 35 websites where one can get information regarding what I already know and know how to do... chemically and digitally... Maybe the Craigster will give the uniformed a lesson regarding the fine points of dodging and burning, I suspect he won't need Miller's website referrals, it should however keep him busy while he waits for our next post - what say, Craig? Few examples from you wouldn't hurt, take the heat of of Bill dealing with the issue and show what kind of expertise you might have -- bet only a few around here know what you do, time to get on the record? CLICK...you're gone.. Edited July 7, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 David...the Craigster does COLOR photography. No good color photographer nowadays does his own labwork. They either send it out, or hire expert technicians so they can spend time doing photography, where the big bucks are. Darkroom work can be easily taught. Lighting and composition are much harder. Lamson DOES do nice color photos...a good average color photographer. But he obviously is not a knowitall. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now