.

[Scouttrooper]

.

 

[tiler65]

Don't you think things like that went on in the dark room then?

 

[Lindsay D]

Why is it that every digital 'tog' on this forum has to post photos only after the contrast and saturation has been increased in photoshop. What is this obsession with increasing contrast and saturation. It just makes todays photography look 1 dimensional.

It seems to me that a lot of people here are not 'photographers with a copy of photoshop' but are actually 'Photoshop Users with a camera'.

Where are the Cecil Beatons, Irving Penns, David Baileys, Patrick Litchfields of today.

Sadly, most of todays digital portraits don't move me in any way, unlike a lot of the portraits from the last century.

You'd be staggered by the level of 'retouching' carried out by some of the photographers you've mentioned, particularly Mr Beaton.

Sounds like you've got some sort of chip on your shoulder. I'm not sure you understand what's involved in producing good quality, marketable work. But what do I know.

 

[Scouttrooper]

.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

Sorry, but you first post sounds trollish at best, just trying to stir up trouble.

And your second post is just silly.

Firstly, there was superhero films long before the xman film came out, and the amount of superhero films compared to other types is tiny so they certainly aren't sticking to what is marketable, but that is beside the point.

What is the point, is you seem to complain about the large use of photoshop, then go on to talk about HDR??

Again, screams of trollage!

 

[big soft moose]

also the saturated look was in vogue well before digital - Fuji Velvia ring any bells ?

 

[Decca]

This sounds like someone either unable to afford PS (there are free alternatives) or someone who can't work out how to use it.

Again echoing the other posts, name a old school pro photographer who didn't adjust in the dark room? Or do you think they all just popped the canister in at Jessops?

 

[dod]

oh for flip sake, closed