Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Anyone tried Snapseed from Nik Software before?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

The thing is, just because everyone can do it does not mean that a serious and competent photographer
should exclude himself from the fun.


But then you either don't show them to public, or you show them but say honestly how you made them.
If you don't say, and let people who admire your work think that it's the result of your prodigious creative effort, then you lie to your
followers, and you lose their respect - because of the lie, not because of the presets.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

The thing is, just because everyone can do it does not mean that a serious and competent photographer
should exclude himself from the fun.


But then you either don't show them to public, or you show them but say honestly how you made them.
If you don't say, and let people who admire your work think that it's the result of your prodigious creative effort, then you lie to your
followers, and you lose their respect - because of the lie, not because of the presets.


I can see your point Orio and agree with you but outside of the photography community, Joe Public generally doesn't care about the equipment one uses or how one achieves the end result.

Standard response is usually, "you must have a really good camera."

Sad but true.

Had it myself with images that I've spent ages in all weathers waiting for the light to be right for, only to get, "wow, you must have a super camera"... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think people use tricks to force interest
someone will look the normal version only half second
with tricks, he will try to understand and stay 5 seconds
doesn't matter if people hate or like
like celebrities who create events, trying to be remarked
btw 'ΟΛΙ ΡΕΝ' is 'Olli Rehn' in greek (European Commissioner)


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

But then you either don't show them to public, or you show them but say honestly how you made them.
If you don't say, and let people who admire your work think that it's the result of your prodigious creative effort, then you lie to your
followers, and you lose their respect - because of the lie, not because of the presets.


I don't think this is generally true. No matter what photographers would like to believe, “normal people” don't really care about the technical details of how an image was created. Some other photographers may indeed feel cheated if they were impressed by something that they thought was hard to create and then it turns out to be a thoughtless process of selecting a preset, but I don't think the target audience of images processed by this kind of toy software is other photographers at all—these are snapshots for just throwing out there.

That doesn't mean that they couldn't be interesting; sometimes the thing actually in the photo, a place, a person, a moment in time, may well be interesting in itself without being visually interesting—using an effect, even a cheap one, may just serve to liven up such a photo or to grab the attention of a person who would otherwise not have looked at it. Or the photo may be an inspiration for later re-doing the same effect “properly” (perhaps by a different person). Still, most of them may well be just one-glance photos… but so are many photos on which hours of work have been spent; it depends on engaging the viewer.


Also, getting slightly more philosophical, photographs are always lies. Sometimes the context in which they are published makes some (usually implied) promise of accuracy, e.g., news photos (which are often staged more than edited), but this is not universal. For most casual and “art” photos I would say that it would be completely unrealistic to assume that publishing them online (e.g., on Facebook, flickr, or any forum) contains some promise of accuracy, hard work, and/or “artistic integrity” unless some kind of disclaimer stating “this is just a preset” is included.

Personally I often find myself setting “too high” standards for publishing my photos online and as a consequence don't end up publishing many photos that would genuinely be of interest to some people (e.g., the people in those photos or people who were with me on the same trip). I find that using some simple effects can help lower this threshold by making the photo look like one of those gimmicky snapshots—which is a good thing here, since then I don't need to go to any trouble explaining (even to myself) why it's not “properly processed”; most people who care about the technical details can immediately recognize the effect as the same that is used by thousands of other people. If someone sees that photo and doesn't identify the effect I used, and think that I did some creative work in Photoshop, and cares about such things, then yes, perhaps they may feel cheated when they find out that it was just simple preset. Shit happens—I didn't make any promise to anyone about how I process or present my photos; the assumption was only in their head.



As an additional thought game: what if the author of that software/effect uses it on their own photos? I mean, if one person goes through the trouble of designing that effect, and creating the textures/presets/etc, and possibly even programming the software for it, is it better if they use it on their photos? After all, it was obviously a product of their creative process… Or is it that every photo be processed individually with equal care, and therefore even using one's own presets is bad? Or is it the fact that everyone else can get access to the same preset that ruins it?

I'm not saying this to argue with you or anyone specifically; I think it's a genuinely interesting question to which I don't claim to know the answer. For example, some trendy effects are always “disappointing” for me when I see them overused, but I may have liked them the first time I saw them… even though rationally it shouldn't really matter what other people do, and being deliberately anti-trendy is just a reverse way of following the masses. I think it's a funny thing; one can never know if they would have done, or would have wanted to do, that same thing if they hadn't seen someone else do it or if they didn't have this or that preset or software.

Last edited by Arkku on Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:04 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is an ethical content in honesty which is of value in itself and it does not depend on the circumstance if the majority of people can recognize it or not.

And I am proud to be able to say that my photographic work, for what ever it is worth, is honest. I don't take shortcuts and hide them from viewers.
I give each and every photograph of mine the same amount of individual care.
It takes _days_ of work to me to present a series like that of Carnevale. From the slow and painful selection, to the individual editing.
I do not put in the cauldron unselected photos, I do not run batch adjustments on them.
I start with a thought or a feeling when I take a photo, that thought or feeling becomes a thread for me, and from that moment on, I follow that thread step by step until it's end.
If I'd have to use stock preset effects to create a whole gallery of a dozen or more images, like the photographer I mentioned did,
then it would mean that I don't care enough about my photos to give them an individual treatment;
and if I don't care enough about my own photo, how can I expect that my viewers may care about it?
And if it happened that viewers might care about a photo that I did not care about enough in the first place, this would feel bad to me as a photographer.

I think that the viewers of my photos know that. They know that if they see a photo from me, it's because I thought it was worth of care.
Then they might like it or not, but this is of secondary importance.
What is important for me is that they know how I work, that they learn to trust my work, so that next time around, they will come back to me with trust,
they will trust me, they will trust my work.

I have the same feeling of trust towards some of the collegues here.
For instance, I trust Peter's work (Spotmatic), and I trust Tobias' work (Tobbsman), and I trust Klaus' (kds315*). I know that they care about the photos they show here,
I know that they don't take shortcuts, and that I can trust what I see as being the fruit of their skills and dedication.
It is not a blind trust, what I give: they have earned it with the years of constant and honest dedication, and obvious personal work and research, that is visible through their pictures.
This is important. At least, it is for me. And it does not change if sometimes I don't like some things that they do.

There are others that I trust here, not just them - they are the first who came to mind because of the exceptional constant high standard of quality that they display,
but there are others, both in digital and film departments, that I learned to trust over the time for their honest photographic dedication. I will not make a list.

If I would take shortcuts, and hide them (not admit publicly about them), which would be basically cheating with the trust of my viewers,
I might have some great occasional success, but in the long run I would lose the trust of my audience. And that loss is very hard to recover.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
There is an ethical content in honesty which is of value in itself and it does not depend on the circumstance if the majority of people can recognize it or not.


Yes, to be sure, but this honesty in this case is only self-imposed; there is no universal agreement as to which effects or software packages are “honest” or what amount of work is required for the processing of each individual photo for it to be acceptable. In my opnion it has more to do with how a photo is presented:

– if a photo is on, say, instagram (a service exclusively for iPhone photos, processed with an app of the same name with presets similar to snapseed although perhaps a bit less over the top), then it's obvious that the photo used a one-click preset: no dishonesty

– if a photo is in the photographer's portfolio, then it is implied that it should showcase their own work and using a preset or stock material would be very dishonest (except if the photographer specifically says that this is an example of how they can create “digital art” from stock material)

Facebook, flickr, forums (like this one), are somewhere between these two extremes, in my opinion, and I think it depends largely on knowing the standards of the person posting the photo. If someone always posts cheaply edited photos on facebook, for example, there is nothing wrong or dishonest about that even if they batch process every single one of them with a one-click cheesy effect—it's just how they use their facebook. Then again, if you were to suddenly post a photo processed only with an obvious preset, then perhaps some people would feel that you have lowered your standards and maybe your photos cannot be “trusted” to be of such high quality. But then again, I think (that for me!) this has more to do with the effect being cheesy than inherent dishonesty in using presets made by others: if—after giving it some thought—you find a preset happens that to do exactly what you want, why would it be somehow better to do the effect manually in Photoshop?

Alose, consider an “unedited” straight out of the camera photo—as much as there can ever be an unedited digital photo—surely that is the ultimate laziness and thoughtlessness in processing, simply using the camera's built-in preset made by the camera manufacturer and included with the camera, used by tens of thousands of people. Still, some (silly) people consider this to be the only “honest” way of displaying photos. Clearly there is no consensus on what is honest/dishonest in post-processing.

Orio wrote:
I don't take shortcuts and hide them from viewers.


It is great that you have high standards and they are certainly appreciated on this forum (and surely elsewhere as well). Please don't think that I am arguing against this or having such standards. I just think that such standards are always personal and self-imposed, and one cannot expect others to have the same standards. Again, consider those people that have this “straight out of the camera” standard; it would not be realistic for them to assume that your photos are always straight out of the camera unless you specifically say that you've processed them… this just becomes known from the context and over time on a case-by-case basis.

Orio wrote:

It takes _days_ of work to me to present a series like that of Carnevale.

…

and if I don't care enough about my own photo, how can I expect that my viewers may care about it?


You can't expect viewers to care about the photo, period. Some viewers will surely appreciate the knowledge that a photo from you has taken serious thought and effort, but others will simply not care about anything other than the result. In fact, someone who dislikes the photo may even think “what, despite all that effort you still couldn't do better than that?” But they don't really matter, do they? Again, it's about holding on to the standards you set for yourself that makes you feel better, and that's what matters. If some other people see the value in that (as many do) then that's a bonus, but really… photographic forums on the internet would be quite devoid of photos if everyone was expected to hold themselves to this same standard.

Orio wrote:

If I would take shortcuts, and hide them (not admit publicly about them)


I sort of get the “shortcut” argument—you want more thought and work to be involved for each individual photo so using a quick effect is a thoughtless shortcut? Ok, but… speaking of the photos you linked to, they all had the same texture and effect, so even if they had created that texture and effect themselves, it was obvious that they were batch processed, so the “shortcut” was plain to see even without recognizing the effect as coming from some specific piece of software.

So, the “hide them” argument I don't get. Where is this authority that says what kind of processing is permitted, or how much effort it must have taken, before it must be explained to the viewer? Someone mentioned film simulation (silver efex) earlier; this is also the use of a simple preset to give a certain look to a photo, why is it that this is not considered cheating? Because fewer people do it? Because you find it better looking? Personally I think it's even more “dishonest” because (like most good “effects”) it's harder to spot—but perhaps I'm more cynical in not expecting any photo to have been painstakingly edited.

I think if a photo looks as though it is the result of a thought-out creative process, then that is all that matters. The software process is completely irrelevant—if they managed to fulfill their vision with a one-click preset, than that means they were more skilled in editing because they could accomplish it easier. (But of course it is unlikely that someone can use the same one-click preset over and over and always make it look like that's exactly what they visioned all along… and if thousands of other people use the same preset, it's astronomically unlikely that they can convince me that their artistic vision is exactly the result of effect. =)


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

I think if a photo looks as though it is the result of a thought-out creative process, then that is all that matters.


Then also the fake paintings of Mona Lisa "look" like the original.
Can you now tell what creativity is there in applying a preset?
More, not simply a preset: also a preset that half the world is currently using in all their photo outputs, from reflex to cell phones and ipads.
That is the opposite of creativity: it's standardization, at the most industrial.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Then also the fake paintings of Mona Lisa "look" like the original.
Can you now tell what creativity is there in applying a preset?


Yes, and if a fake is good enough to be indistinguishable (to the viewer) from the original, what does it matter? All the creativity and more hard work than in the original is there, it's just that the creativity does not come from the person who painted the fake. I believe many museums display good forgeries in place of originals if, for some reason, the original is not available at the time.

The dishonesty here would come from either 1) trying to claim the result as one's own original work (in case of Mona Lisa this would be very difficult), or 2) trying to claim one's forgery as being painted by the original painter.

In case of using a preset, neither of these applies: the original photo is one's original work: choosing the settings, location, composition, etc are, in my opinion, the major part of taking a photo. Only the post-processing uses work of others, but still there is the process of selecting which preset to apply, how strongly, and with what settings (Snapseed, for example, has multiple adjustable parameters for the presets). This is not really inherently different from using Photoshop… if you choose “auto contrast” or click the white balance dropper on a given spot, you are effectively using processing defined by others (the programmers). Likewise in Silver Efex if you choose a film simulation. There is no supreme authority who can define when this is acceptable or creative.

In case of the Snapseed photos one could argue that the texture created by others is what makes the difference, but many people put in a lot of work to creating digital art that uses textures and stock photos by others. Likewise, if you put text into a graphical piece of work, you are usually using a font created by others… the creativity comes from choosing which font or texture, what size, when, where.

Let's say someone goes through 1000 different stock textures and finally picks one for their photo, carefully adjusts the program's parameters to make it just right, then uses Silver Efex to apply just the right film simulation that they had in mind. Another person clicks one button because it happens to be there, and this button happens to apply the same film simulation and the same texture. Yes, one did more work, but how can the viewer tell? Probably a critical viewer will just assume that the former also used this simple preset… But I'd like to think that if the resulting photo works to convey their vision, that suffices. And it is by far more likely that the former manages to convey their vision but the latter does not. This is what, in my opinion, matters, not how they got there.

Orio wrote:

More, not simply a preset: also a preset that half the world is currently using in all their photo outputs, from reflex to cell phones and ipads.
That is the opposite of creativity: it's standardization, at the most industrial.


Yes, this I fully agree with. I just don't think it's dishonest. Most of these photos—as has been said before—are simply snapshots for sharing casually, and the effects are simply toys for having fun. That may be sad, the results may be bad, but it doesn't make me at all that mad… =)


(Again, it's a different issue if someone puts one of these thoughtless one-click preset photos into their portfolio and tries to pass it off as art. But putting a photo in their facebook or wherever does not automatically carry such promise—“serious” photographers have a right to post silly crap and throwaway snapshots as well. It doesn't automatically take anything away from their other work. It may do that if they fail to convey that a given photo is in a different category, not their “real work”…)


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

Yes, and if a fake is good enough to be indistinguishable (to the viewer) from the original, what does it matter?


The difference is that the original comes from the hard effort of a genius who created something that did not exist before. The copy is an imitation that required no invention and no creativity, only the replica of something that existed before.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

The difference is that the original comes from the hard effort of a genius who created something that did not exist before. The copy is an imitation that required no invention and no creativity, only the replica of something that existed before.


Yes, exactly, this is what I said:

Arkku wrote:
…the creativity does not come from the person who painted the fake.


But, anyhow, that is really besides the point in my posts. I certainly don't think that a photo which does not come “from the hard effort of a genius” could not honestly be posted online without a disclaimer stating this, and I don't think you do either. =)


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The genius was referred to Leonardo of course.
A photographer may not be a genius, but the difference between an image that is the result of an individual and personal effort,
and an image which is built using pre-fabricated modules prepared by somebody else, still remains.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The genius was referred to Leonardo of course.
A photographer may not be a genius, but the difference between an image that is the result of an individual and personal effort,
and an image which is built using pre-fabricated modules prepared by somebody else, still remains.


Yes, I have not disagreed with any of this.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Orio wrote:
The genius was referred to Leonardo of course.
A photographer may not be a genius, but the difference between an image that is the result of an individual and personal effort,
and an image which is built using pre-fabricated modules prepared by somebody else, still remains.


Yes, I have not disagreed with any of this.


Are you sure? You wrote that there is no difference between an image that is truly creative and one that only looks creative.
To me this seems like a substantial disagreement on the above.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please allow me to butt into the discussion with an image sample.
I tested snapseed a month or so ago along with instagram for my FB friends to see which app to download.
Again, this is a fun app that can be used as a photography tool not such a serious thing.
The photo was taken by a friend with a PS camera.
It's just a simple program but, if you think about it is equal to all photo manipulation programs.
What's really the difference between one key stroke or many. Manipulated is manipulated.
No one would try and hide behind the banner of originality when it comes to this type of image. But why should they.
Originality and Appeal are not mutually exclusive.
Someone posted that most viewers would say "OMG you must have have a cool camera!". I agree with that experience fully.
Integrity of the photographer is only important to other photographers. Myself included. The average user can not be bothered with the "how" of an image.
Just whether or not it resonates. I'm fine with that.

original
[img]

Snapseed
[/img]


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Arkku wrote:
Orio wrote:
The genius was referred to Leonardo of course.
A photographer may not be a genius, but the difference between an image that is the result of an individual and personal effort,
and an image which is built using pre-fabricated modules prepared by somebody else, still remains.


Yes, I have not disagreed with any of this.


Are you sure? You wrote that there is no difference between an image that is truly creative and one that only looks creative.
To me this seems like a substantial disagreement on the above.


Please show me where you think I said this so that I may correct the misunderstanding. If it was this:

Arkku wrote:
Let's say someone goes through 1000 different stock textures and finally picks one for their photo, carefully adjusts the program's parameters to make it just right, then uses Silver Efex to apply just the right film simulation that they had in mind. Another person clicks one button because it happens to be there, and this button happens to apply the same film simulation and the same texture. Yes, one did more work, but how can the viewer tell?


Then the point was that it is possible that the viewer is unable to tell from the resulting photo how it was technically made.

Arkku wrote:
Probably a critical viewer will just assume that the former also used this simple preset… But I'd like to think that if the resulting photo works to convey their vision, that suffices. And it is by far more likely that the former manages to convey their vision but the latter does not. This is what, in my opinion, matters, not how they got there.


i.e., what makes the difference is whether or not the photographer/artist manages to convey their intent (“artistic vision”, if you will) to the viewer, not what software (if any) they used to achieve it. And, like I say in the quoted part, I think that it's far more likely that a person manages to convey their vision through effort and personal work, and a person using nothing but a preset does not. But it is the end result, conveying their vision, that matters, not how they did it. There the difference is potentially huge.


As yet another thought game, consider film photography. Having a film developed and printed in a lab is exactly like using a preset: no control over the results, only the ability to choose the film and the lab to begin with, and perhaps with some labs the option to ask for certain kind of general adjustment (push, pull, cross-process, etc). Also everyone else can use the same lab and the same process, so it's not personalized. Does this mean that anyone showing a lab-developed print needs to include a disclaimer “this was developed in a lab”, or be considered dishonest?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

It's just a simple program but, if you think about it is equal to all photo manipulation programs.
What's really the difference between one key stroke or many. Manipulated is manipulated.
No one would try and hide behind the banner of originality when it comes to this type of image. But why should they.


+1


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shocked Shocked

I can't believe my thread has sparked such an intense "philosophical" debate!!! For me it just meant to be a "non-serious" fun, kind of lazy and poor mans toolkit as it is so cheap to try out.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

It's just a simple program but, if you think about it is equal to all photo manipulation programs.


No, it's not, because when I open photoshop, and load my photo, I edit it my own way, I do not use materials from other people.
When you load a photo into snapseed, and apply this "aged" preset or whatever it's called, what you do is simply to tell this program to mix your photo with another photograph that it's not yours, and in a particular way that is not decided by you, but it's pre-set by somebody else, who has never saw your photo and never will.

And what makes it even worse, millions of people have these preset and this identical texture map, so your "unique" photograph features bits of an image that is present in millions of photos worldwide. I see this "antique" texture on my friend's photos of New York, and on poilu's photo of carnaval, and on Arhitectu landscape... the same, identical spots, scratches, etc.

Is this the consideration that photographers should have of their own photographic work? You go out, struggle to take a good photo, then move it to your ipad and mix it with another photograph taken by an unknown guy that is used by millions of people? Using a colour preset that is used by millions of people? Then why care to go out and photograph at all? Why care to buy the best lenses that you can afford... walk for hours in the countryside... carry a heavy photo bag... Just download nice pictures from the internet, there ain't gonna be much difference from the end result that you will have after having applied the everpresent snapseed preset.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Is this the consideration that photographers should have of their own photographic work? You go out, struggle to take a good photo, then move it to your ipad and mix it with another photograph taken by an unknown guy that is used by millions of people?


No, I don't “struggle to take a good photo”. This program is not for “good photos”. It's for fun, entertainment, snapshots. Even good photographers with serious gear and skills have the “right” to have a bit of fun and post little snapshots. The only problem comes if you assume that anything they post must always be something they consider to be a “good photo”.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
It's for fun, entertainment, snapshots.


But the photographer I mentioned presented it as a complete series with a title "Memories of New York"
as if it was some serious work.
It is this type of cheating that I think is wrong - and if you read my original post it's exactly about this point.
Of course it's ok for the casual guy to use that effect on his iphone pictures. That's what it's made for, and the price tag of Snapseed shows it's purpose.
But the casual guy is not a professional photographer who on his Facebook page presents a series of photographs with a title as if it was a serious work.
That is why I speak of betrayed trust. Like someone arrives and says "look at what great picture I have done!"... no, guy. You haven't done anything.
It's like if someone finds a wallet with 10.000 Euros inside and "look, I'm so good that I earned 10.000 Euros in one time"... no, you just found them, and you have no merit for that.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

But the photographer I mentioned presented it as a complete series with a title "Memories of New York"
as if it was some serious work.


To me this title and posting it on Facebook sounds like they are holiday snapshots. After looking at the photos with the obvious effect & cheesy compositions, I cannot see how anyone might consider them as “serious work”.

Orio wrote:
That is why I speak of betrayed trust.


Yes, I understand that, which is also why my original point was that there is no inherent promise that a photo posted online, on Facebook no less, has some promise of being serious work. But, yes, it seems we have come a circle here so maybe we'll just have to agree that we have different expectations of photos posted online—maybe I'm just more cynical in assuming less of the quality.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Snapseed for me is the perfect program to turn boring and or technically inferior pictures into something that can be used and shared. It's not art and it doesn' have to be. It's quick and it's fun. I use it on my iPad all the time.

edit: the following picture ws taken with my iPad (3rd gen), 2 minutes later the pic was cropped, adjusted and on FB.



Last edited by Pontus on Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:19 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use it on my iPhone for "quick'n easy" adjustments, but I don't use these preset filter functions.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
poilu wrote:
I just hope Ian doesn't read this post


Me? Don't worry, I hate Apple with a passion and would never own an iphone or ipad.

I hate mobile phones full stop, I very rarely use mine.

Off topic : Shocked So, we are two of this kind on the planet ? Laughing
On topic : Don't know , I feel Orio's right , this doesn't mean that I totally disagree with Arkku .
It's a tool . Probably , in time ,the things are going to settle in some manner . But I can 't restrict the feeling that this direction of evolution introduces a kind of trivialisation in photography . In some degree it ressembles to the one introduced in music by the large scale use of computer software :lots of crap music and a lowering of the general level of quality by the access of non talented persons in this activity.Of course , people who know , can't be cheated , but lots of ordinary Joe miskae these persons and products as original and real value . This can lead to a lowering of the level at wich the ignorant public resonates. We can listen this every day.
Probably ,we are going to see it too.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yinyangbt wrote:
Off topic : Shocked So, we are two of this kind on the planet ? Laughing

Three! Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2