Yo, Dude! I'm likin' the lay it out there approach!
I was thinking of saying some similar things, but probably would have
been more diplomatic. :-)
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Well, you've said you have Photoshop Elements, and also that you despise
> Adobe. This leads me to believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that
> you actually don't know shoot from shinola about, say, CS4 and its
> capabilities.
On the evidence at hand, the latest zone-10 essay, it's PS7 or maybe
PSCS1. As you say, none the many additional tools for tonal control
introduced in both ACR and PS since then. I only had CS2 on my notebook
on my trip East, and the lack of a couple of CS3 tools drove me frantic
when I tried to work on a couple of images. (Note to self, install later
PS on notebook.)
> Your self-imposed blinders aren't narrowing your view, they are obscuring it.
> This suggests to me that you actually don't know much about what you're
> talking about. You are, as they say, interpolating. Free form interpolation.
> Personally, I think you're doing a piss-poor job of it, but that's just me.
>
The pundit driving a '55 Chevy may indeed come to incorrect conclusions
about contemporary cars - and possibly mislead others. (I was thinking
fondly back to my '55 Chevy recently, and realized what a piece of crap
it was compared to even my 14 year old car.)
> But that's not even my real point. The thing that irritates me about more and
> more of your posts is the enthusiasm with which you describe your film
> passions, and then the transference of that enthusiasm to denigration and
> disparagement of those who don't see it your way. Maybe not directly, or
> personally, but the implication is laid bare for anyone who cares to see it.
> It is not necessary to curb your enthusiasm. My intent here is to suggest
> that it's not necessary to follow up any statement of the wonderful qualities
> of A with a
> sledgehammer exhibition of your perceived shortcomings of B.
>
Well said, and much more clearly than when I've attempted something
similar. Getting perilously close to arguing religion, though. ;-)
> May I quote you?
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>
>> But for the crazed digirules-filmdrools crowd, doing everything in
>> post-production and pretending that it's "just as good as the real thing",
>> there is no convincing them that they are sadly mistaken.
>>
Just a note to others who may read the lovely rant that followed this
point. Bob makes much of his living by selling art prints to the public,
prints that are, in the opinion of this hopeless digi-drudge, damn fine.
It ain't just some silly Moose who only does it for his own pleasure.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|