I just have a second to get some quick thoughts out there, so I don't have time to add the images to support this message (sorry to all of you who only read my blog because you get a little notice telling you that I included your image in my blog). Here is my ONE image:

I was helping a friend learn PS CS2 today and 2 hours of 'instruction', we realize its time for lunch. So, we go and eat lunch and come back and now were getting serious about the thing. We are talking about layers and masks and histograms and tonal adjustments and sheep. OK, not sheep, just making sure you weren't reading too fast.

It was fun to share some of the things I have learned over the last two years working with the program on my own, but there were a few buttons and functions that he asked me about that I didn't have a clue what they did. Of course, being the type of male that would never stop to ask directions, I just said, "well, I could show you how to use it, but that would be just a bit more than you may want to focus on having just started to learn how to use the program."

Never let them see you sweat, right?

So, now that I have imparted a little of my knowledge on him, he is emailing me all of these pictures. "What do you think of this?" "I did this and that to this picture. How did it turn out?" It makes me feel good to know that he values my opinion. I am careful not to be too critical of his work so he doesn't find out right away what a pompous jerk I am. I try to keep that side of me hidden.

We started talking about film photography and I was thinking about how I know basically NOTHING about it (at least the processiing part that I do digitally in PS). I mean, of course the f-stop, focal lengths, and shutter speeds all translate to digital almost equivically, but the result and processing is so different. To me, it seems like alot of work. I have a very sensitive sniffer, too. So, I don't know if I could handle the smell of the chemicals in the darkroom.

Anyway, I think that digital photography has finally reached a level where even the die-hardest of film photographers are at least trying it. Most have switched over to digital as their primary, using film as a fun, nostalgic way to remain grounded in their roots and feel comfortable and competent after bumbling through some post processing work in PS.

How many more advances will digital photography have to make before film becomes the BETA tape version to our VHS tapes? I am still amazed that D-SLR's are coming out with live preview capabilities, which (in this analagy) would be like DVD's. What's next? PS capabilities on the camera?

Photo credits: Jason Schulz.

Your article must be written in English

August 29, 2007


As far as "reading light" goes, I understand what you are saying. Keep in mind that digital cameras are computers that are doing alot of calculations and so how the camera 'reads' the light has more to do with how the programmer translates the 1's and 0's into an image than anything else, just as Kodak film 'reads' light different than Fuji film 'reads' it.

August 28, 2007


I worked with film most of my life. One thing I noticed when I switched to digital is that film cameras and digital cameras do not read the light the same way. One setting on 35mm film doesn't yield quite the same results on a digital, unless you change the hue, saturation,contrast, etc settings prior to shooting.

August 28, 2007


If you can get that much out in a second, what can you do in an hour?

August 28, 2007


If this is quick and without images, then I quit from writing any more blogs :)

August 28, 2007


I think it's the comfort factor in going digital and also unlimited possibilities to explore and get fantastic results that keeps it going!

Related image searches
Photoshop related image searches