Progress Spoils Our Fun

[PantyFanatic]

We live in a fast technological changing world today and that always has some trade offs. Today Lilith came to mind and I began to recall some of the fun things I use to be able to do that just can't happen today. :tear:

Electronic communication has changed and improved things so very much in the last few decades but at a price. When one of the most expedient and personal methods of communicating was with a telegram, I loved sending one to special people saying "Please Disregard First Telegram" :tongue:

With online shopping we've now almost come full circle with not purchasing from actual local brick & mortar stores. There was a time when you could pick up the big Sears & Roebuck catalog and order just about anything. One of my favorite things was to go to the farm section where you could buy just about any domesticated animal from pigs and chickens to cows and ponies.:cboy: I could fill out the order form, get a money order and have a two pounds (approx: 1,500) box of BEES delivered by parcel-post to that special friend. :D

So what fun things have you had to trade off with the advancement of technology? :confused:

[sad_sam]

Amen :banghead:

[dicksbro]

PF ... you mean things like flying on airplanes without getting frisked, fondled, and x-rayed while carrying finger nail clippers in your pocket? :(

Or, using a pay phone no longer found on streets or in most shops to call someone?

Oh well. :shrug:

[Oldfart]

One nasty thing that we haven't had to trade off is that if you send a fax to a special someone's phone, it can be set for a particular time, repeating every 15 minutes until success. One of these to the cell as well adds to the shared joy. Friday night often means the fax won't be reset before Monday.

What technology has take away has largely been replaced with new fun.

BTW, you didn't hear this from me.

[jseal]

... So what fun things have you had to trade off with the advancement of technology? :confused:
The authenticity of photographs.

[Oldfart]

Tush pish jseal.

The camera NEVER lies.

[AZRedHot]

The authenticity of photographs, other than ones you took yourself, was always suspect, JSeal...as long as there have been photos, there have been people retouching them in various ways. Colorizing them with paints, dodging and burning in for better contrast, double-exposures, airbrushing.

I'm with OF on this one...we do all the things we always did, just in slightly different ways. I would yearn for a real letter, but no one sent them that often even before e-mail. The ancient Greeks perved looking at urns. We have Pixies. Plus ça change...

[Lord Snow]

I haven't really lost anything, just what I'm used to has gotten faster and a little easier.




AZ, I'd have to find a decent fountain pen to send a real letter. Unfortunately, those are few and far between in stores these days.

[Fangtasia]

hmmmfttt ......Not all photos are retouched either! I only touch what i have to, and with the new camera it really isnt that much at all if anything. Sometimes i might make it a B&W or sepia tone, but rarely is it a major overhaul. If it requires that much work generally the pic is shit and i'd rather reshoot!

Even back in the ages a photo could still be manipulated, yes now days its far easier, but its not a new thing.

I like the modern world for the most part, afterall without technology there would be no internet, without tht no Pixies.

I'm happy with my lot *L*

[PantyFanatic]

Yeah, but I still can't send Lilith 2 pounds of bees with just an order form and money order. :banghead:

[AZRedHot]

Yeah, but I still can't send Lilith 2 pounds of bees with just an order form and money order. :banghead:

So it doesn't really ruin your fun so much as your evil. Poor, poor PF. :console:

[Lord Snow]

I thought being evil was fun. Have I been wrong all these years?

[AZRedHot]

I can't say. It was never a requirement for me, though.

[gekkogecko]

Yeah, but I still can't send Lilith 2 pounds of bees with just an order form and money order. :banghead:


But you can now go on-line, and order her up a clown.

[Scarecrow]

Please,
Do not Fold, spindle or mutilate.

[jseal]

Handwriting is an art dying by email.

The manipulation of pictures with digital tools is orders of magnitude easier than when they were analog.

[Fangtasia]

Which is what i said jseal lmao


that wasnt the point though....photos have always had the ability to be changed. I cant see where technolongy has changed that fact

[Oldfart]

Cut and paste had a literal beginning.

[jseal]

... photos have always had the ability to be changed. I cant see where technolongy has changed that fact
I don't recall there ever being an analog version of Photoshop, or like products. Have you? If not, then yes, digital technology has indeed changed that fact.

[Lord Snow]

I'm going to break in and say Fang is saying through what would now be considered more archaic means we've been able to change/manipulate photos, while jseal is arguing on HOW they're able to be changed. Through technology more people are able to manipulate their own photos rather than having to rely on professionals.

[Fangtasia]

LS - Thats not what jseal stated at all

The authenticity of photographs

The above is what he said, and the authenticity of photos is NOT to be blamed fully on technology. This is something that has ALWAYS been around'

jseal - you are being deliberately dunce obviously. Maybe go back and actually read what i wrote in my posts.

[jseal]

... jseal is arguing on HOW they're able to be changed. Through technology more people are able to manipulate their own photos rather than having to rely on professionals.
Correct

[jseal]

... jseal - you are being deliberately dunce obviously ...
Incorrect

[Scarecrow]

Photoshop or darkroom, the only difference is the price of the equipment. Anyone who wanted to could learn how to work in a darkroom. It just takes time and money.

[Fangtasia]

Incorrect
No i was correct you never stated in your original comment ANYTHING about the means to change photos, or anything about professionals

Again

The authenticity of photographs

ALWAYS been an issue, not something new


Dunce, and still you havent read my posts obviously *L*

Technology has made it easier to do

But as for authenticity, with referral to your post, not something new so dont blame technology

I dont have a wizzbang program, so photoshop isnt a requirement, i could manipulate a photo in paint *LOL* Paint just requires more effort.

[Oldfart]

Photos were printed in blow-up, things cut out from other photos pasted (and waxed and drawn) onto it, and re-photographed.

There is a famous photo of Lee Harvey Oswald where the shadows are confused.

[jseal]

... There is a famous photo of Lee Harvey Oswald where the shadows are confused.
Quite so. It is very, very difficult to manipulate an analog photograph without telltale evedence.

[jseal]

Technology has made it easier to do ...
So much more so that the authenticity of photographs is a thing of tthe past.

Correct

[jseal]

...It just takes time and money.
How much money? What is the cost of the digital Photoshop? What is the cost of an analog photo shop? $200 vs. $2,000? An order of magnitude.

Only professionals had the talent, expertise and time to do then what we all now can.

The authenticity of photographs was a casualty of the digital age.

[jseal]

... I dont have a wizzbang program, so photoshop isnt a requirement, i could manipulate a photo in paint *LOL* Paint just requires more effort.
In other words, you can now do for free what would have taken a trained professional using $$$$ of equipment to do in the past

The authenticity of photographs is a victim of the digital age.

[Fangtasia]

Quite so. It is very, very difficult to manipulate an analog photograph without telltale evedence.
Same goes for digital photos, being manipulated leaves traces.

And i bet the analogue photos were believed by the majority with just the professionals knowing the difference, same as with digital

[Fangtasia]

So much more so that the authenticity of photographs is a thing of tthe past.

Correct
Incorrect....which you dont seem to understand *LOL*

So you are telling me all my photos have been manipulated?

There are different forms of photography also, that needs to be taken into account. Some take photos for just themselves, others take them to use as an artform (generally varying degrees of manipulation), others do HDR photography (this is where i wanna head to at some stage), which is 3 photos of the same thing with different values put together to make an enhanced photo.

Photography has advanced no doubt, but there are still those photographers that use film cameras and darkrooms, no photoshop ect

The Authenticity is still there, it has not disappeared. Same as back when, they manipulated or not to the levels they could with what they had, wether they be professionals or not. Today we are no different, we manipulate or not to the levels we can with what we have. And in the future they will do no different.

Just because technology is here doesnt mean photos are less authentic. If you doubt a persons work ask, most have no problems telling you if the photos has been touched.

[Fangtasia]

In other words, you can now do for free what would have taken a trained professional using $$$$ of equipment to do in the past
If i want to get to the level a trained professional is, your an idiot if you think i dont need to pay shitloads for the equipment needed. For normal old joe blow though a cheap and easy program will do, you will definately not get the same level of results though, same as in the past.

You get what you pay for

The authenticity of photographs is a victim of the digital age.
Frogshit is all i will add to that!!

[Oldfart]

Is there some level of disagreement here?

Just checking.

[AZRedHot]

I'll say this much...the joys of Photoshop and its ilk have spared the denizens of Pixies from having to see random zits on my ass, so for that I am (and I'm sure you all are) exceedingly grateful. :D

[Fangtasia]

I'll say this much...the joys of Photoshop and its ilk have spared the denizens of Pixies from having to see random zits on my ass, so for that I am (and I'm sure you all are) exceedingly grateful. :D
LMAO

[jseal]

If i want to get to the level a trained professional is, your an idiot if you think i dont need to pay shitloads for the equipment needed ...
You are mistaken. The manipulative capabilities in Photoshop work just as well on a "regular old" desktop or laptop as they do on a high-end machine. They just work more slowly.

... For normal old joe blow though a cheap and easy program will do, you will definately not get the same level of results though, same as in the past ...
The results that may be obtained with Photoshop by Joe are orders of magnitude greater than he would have been able to produce using analog techniques.

... You get what you pay for ...
In the digital age you need pay nothing, while in the analog age the same capabilities would have cost big $$$.

... Frogshit is all i will add to that!!
I'll let that stand by itself.

[jseal]

Here, let’s try a little experiment.

How many pictures did you revise for the 5 years before you were able to manipulate them digitally?
How many pictures did you revise for the 5 years after you were able to manipulate them digitally?

Now multiply the second number by the count of copies of Photoshop sold. That is why I say the authenticity of photographs is a victim of the digital age.

[Fangtasia]

You really are stupid lol

I didnt take many pictures prior to digital age, what i did take i didnt manipulate at all (no darkroom) nor have i to this day. You just dont get it, i dont really manipulate my photos, as stated if i feel it needs that much work i just reshoot.

If i do manipulate a photo to me it is no longer a photo (as in the original) but art, and art is how the artist sees it.

I appreciate the photo/art for what it is and the photographer/artist for what they achieved, wether it be stuff from the dark ages or stuff done now or stuff to come in the future.

I dont own photoshop, nor have any interest in doing so.

The authenticity of photos has in the past and always will be suspect that has never changed, it has nothing to do with technology....

[Fangtasia]

You are mistaken. The manipulative capabilities in Photoshop work just as well on a "regular old" desktop or laptop as they do on a high-end machine. They just work more slowly.
I'm not talking about just the machine *L* Photoshop is not the be all end all of programs available and to get into the high end manipulations you need the best of the best and yes you WILL pay for it. A regular old machine would NOT run even the photo program i have properly *LOL*

The results that may be obtained with Photoshop by Joe are orders of magnitude greater than he would have been able to produce using analog techniques.
Again you dont get it...regadless of magnitude analogue and digital are quite capable of being manipulated, and as such you cannot fully blame technology

In the digital age you need pay nothing, while in the analog age the same capabilities would have cost big $$$.
Thats called progress, there is much from the past that would have cost me the earth that is now far cheaper in now days. If you use a free program, you get what you pay for, as i have stated previously. You want to do high end work you will require a high end program, and to have that you will pay $$$, no different to in the past.


I'll let that stand by itself.
Good because its relevant *L*

[jseal]

You really are stupid lol ...
I'll leave that beside your frogshit.

... I didnt take many pictures prior to digital age, what i did take i didnt manipulate at all (no darkroom) nor have i to this day ...
I'm not surprised that you did not have then, nor have now, a darkroom. It cost (and still costs) big $$$ for a darkroom with the tools needed to manipulate analog photographs.

... You just dont get it, i dont really manipulate my photos, as stated if i feel it needs that much work i just reshoot ...
That too is a result of transitioning from analog photography to digital photography. When a roll of 24 or 36 Kodachrome cost real money, one thought before shooting. But that's not something I miss.

... If i do manipulate a photo to me it is no longer a photo (as in the original) but art, and art is how the artist sees it ...
That doesn't change the fact that before the digital age of photography, photograph manipulation was the domain of the professional who had invested the $$$ in the necessary tools. Now any Tom, Dick, or Harry can, and often do.

... I appreciate the photo/art for what it is and the photographer/artist for what they achieved, wether it be stuff from the dark ages or stuff done now or stuff to come in the future ...
While interesting, and no doubt true, that has nothing to do with the fact that before digital photography, people rarely, if ever (you being a perfect example) manipulated their photographs. "Why" do I hear you ask? Well, I'm glad you did, because that gives me the opportunity to let you know that it was very difficult.

... I dont own photoshop, nor have any interest in doing so ...
Congratulations, I guess.

... The authenticity of photos has in the past and always will be suspect that has never changed, it has nothing to do with technology ...
Nonsense. Photographic evidence was routinely admitted in court, and the reason it was was because faking a photo well enough to fool the court was beyond the means of almost everyone.

[Fangtasia]

Nonsense. Photographic evidence was routinely admitted in court, and the reason it was was because faking a photo well enough to fool the court was beyond the means of almost everyone.
Photographic evidence is still used in court! LMFAO

[Fangtasia]

I'm not surprised that you did not have then, nor have now, a darkroom. It cost (and still costs) big $$$ for a darkroom with the tools needed to manipulate analog photographs.
I didnt have one purely because i wasnt 'into' photography enough to warrent one.

That too is a result of transitioning from analog photography to digital photography. When a roll of 24 or 36 Kodachrome cost real money, one thought before shooting. But that's not something I miss.
I pretty sure that me getting prints done of my digital photos also costs real money *LOL*


That doesn't change the fact that before the digital age of photography, photograph manipulation was the domain of the professional who had invested the $$$ in the necessary tools. Now any Tom, Dick, or Harry can, and often do.
And proper photo manipulation is still the domain of professionals who have invested in the things required to do it to the point it isnt immediately noticable or apparent. It can be quite easy to pick out when done by the normal joe

While interesting, and no doubt true, that has nothing to do with the fact that before digital photography, people rarely, if ever (you being a perfect example) manipulated their photographs. "Why" do I hear you ask? Well, I'm glad you did, because that gives me the opportunity to let you know that it was very difficult.
Very difficult does not equate to it was NEVER done. I never did it back then as i never had an interest in doing so.
I am however VERY much into my photography and yet still i touch the photos very little if at all. I am proud of getting a shot that doesnt need work, as are most photographers.

If a person put themselves out there as a professional, and then they need the high end equipment to make a photo worthy, they are not professional photographer they are an accomplished artist in my eyes.

Little joe trying to make there photos presentable, which the majority would be is a far cry from the amount you seem to think are around

Anyway....i'll stand by my photos have always been manipulated

[jseal]

... Photoshop is not the be all end all of programs available ...
I did not say it was. What it is is a broadly recognized digital picture manipulation program. The name is in the process, if not already there, of being used as a verb; "I photoshopped it".

... and to get into the high end manipulations you need the best of the best and yes you WILL pay for it... .
Except that Photoshop will run acceptably on an everyday machine (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/tech-specs.html). *LOL*, as you say.

... A regular old machine would NOT run even the photo program i have properly *LOL* ...
Hmm ... must have a very interesting Tec spec, eh?

... Again you dont get it...regadless of magnitude analogue and digital are quite capable of being manipulated, and as such you cannot fully blame technology ...
Actually, yes, I do. Having enjoyed b/w photography for many years (why b/w & not color? Because the shades of grey in b/w pics are easier to manipulate than color, which with it's color gradients can be essentially impossible to manage well), and having used Photoshop to revise my digital pics, I am passing familiar with both technologies.

... Thats called progress ...
I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean I don't mourn the demise of an old friend.

... there is much from the past that would have cost me the earth that is now far cheaper in now days ...
That precipitous drop we all enjoy is due to the transition from analog to digital technologies.

... If you use a free program, you get what you pay for, as i have stated previously ...
I have found that one can do quite respectable work with some of the freebies. Windows Live Photo Gallery ships with Win7, is an example.

... You want to do high end work you will require a high end program, and to have that you will pay $$$, no different to in the past... .
You are mistaken. You can do quite remarkable photo massaging with Photoshop, and the list upgrade is $200.

Here is a pic (unretouched?) of a very old friend.

[jseal]

Photographic evidence is still used in court! LMFAO
And when it has been "enhanced" to improve clarity, the court will so advise the jury, as what they are being shown is not the photograph from the camera.

If the jury is not so advised, and the enhanced/retouched/massaged photographs are admitted as evidence, a conviction can be successfully appealed on that basis.

*LOL*, as you say.

[jseal]

I didnt have one purely because i wasnt 'into' photography enough to warrent one ...
A well equipped darkroom costs serious $$$.

... I pretty sure that me getting prints done of my digital photos also costs real money *LOL* ...
And I'm absolutely certain that your "negatives" cost exactly nothing. Kodachrome = negatives.

... And proper photo manipulation is still the domain of professionals who have invested in the things required to do it to the point it isnt immediately noticable or apparent. It can be quite easy to pick out when done by the normal joe ...
You never noticed any of the revisions I've made to the pics I've posted here. Or, more precisely, you've never commented on any of them, so I assume you haven't noticed them.
*LOL*, as you say.

... Very difficult does not equate to it was NEVER done ...
I don't recall saying that it was never done.

... I never did it back then as i never had an interest in doing so ...
Right! Try manipulating the color gradient as the sky touches the horizon with analog equipment. Take notes and brief me on the techniques you used. Hint: try dust.

... I am however VERY much into my photography and yet still i touch the photos very little if at all... .
More power to you.

... I am proud of getting a shot that doesnt need work, as are most photographers...
As well you should be.
... If a person put themselves out there as a professional, and then they need the high end equipment to make a photo worthy, they are not professional photographer they are an accomplished artist in my eyes...
They are both. A portrait, whether done with a paintbrush in oils, or with a good analog (film) or digital camera requires esthetic composition. Once that is done well, the tools are almost incidental.

... Little joe trying to make there photos presentable, which the majority would be is a far cry from the amount you seem to think are around...
The amount of metabolic residue masquerading as photoshopped photographs is enormously greater now that it costs next to nothing to do.

... Anyway....i'll stand by my photos have always been manipulated
As I mentioned above, I don’t recall saying that it was never done, merely very infrequently then when compared with now.

[PantyFanatic]

Analogue photos? :confused: WTF??? Is that anything like the reaction of chemical film?

[Fangtasia]

Pfffftttt...~I've cleaned enough shit today, cant be bothered playing with yours anymore jseal, i didnt post on it cause i really dont care if people have touched up their photos *LOL* Its their work not mine.

If however it is a competition and it states photos are not to be touched up, then damn yeah i will say something

[jseal]

Pfffftttt...~I've cleaned enough shit today, cant be bothered playing with yours anymore jseal ...
Having not given you any, you'll need to look elsewhere for that type of entertainment.

... i really dont care if people have touched up their photos *LOL* Its their work not mine ...
We are all entitled to our opinions.

... If however it is a competition and it states photos are not to be touched up, then damn yeah i will say something
Quite right. Of course you should.

[Scarecrow]

In other words, you can now do for free what would have taken a trained professional using $$$$ of equipment to do in the past

The authenticity of photographs is a victim of the digital age.


Sorry, but it did not take a trained professional and $$$$ of equipment. You could rent a darkroom and equipment and ANYONE who wanted to take the time could learn to manipulate the photos. I know, because I did it (for fun) in the '70s when I was in the service.

[PantyFanatic]

Not while in the service but :nod:.

[jseal]

Sorry, but it did not take a trained professional and $$$$ of equipment. You could rent a darkroom and equipment and ANYONE who wanted to take the time could learn to manipulate the photos.
I learned my analog tricks in high school and college.

The reason you rented that dark room, or joined and remained in the photo club was because we couldn't afford the $$$ to purchase and equip one. Photoshop et al for $200 or less is one reason that there are many times more digitally manipulated photos now than there were then. As you pointed out, "you could". The fact is, when compared with now, very few did.

As to the time it took to learn how to do the analog tricks, how many minutes did it take for you to learn how to remove objects from, and add objects to analog photos? Here is a 9-minute Photoshop tutorial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxaXA3oN0Nk&feature=relmfu) to do just that. The ease with which one can digitally manipulate photographs is the other reason that there are orders of magnitude more revised/touched up/altered photographs now than there was in the past.

How did you add neon stripes to your analog photos? Here's a 1:22 Photoshop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw3Rn5WGWpI&feature=related) tutorial.

[gekkogecko]

I know, because I did it (for fun) in the '70s when I was in the service.


You were in the service for fun ? I think you made a mistake, there.

[Oldfart]

Why?

If doing your civic duty can be fun, embrace it, says I.

[Scarecrow]

You were in the service for fun ? I think you made a mistake, there.


IF you were in my unit, yes it was fun.

[PantyFanatic]

That was SUPPOSE to be the unit I joined up for. :banghead:

[pinkFlames]

Back to the original question. :)

So what fun things have you had to trade off with the advancement of technology? :confused:

I miss the days when we could go to the toilet in peace without being grilled about why we didn't answer the phone.

[scotzoidman]

Obvious troll is still obvious.

[jseal]

The autodialers that put you on hold when you pick up THEIR call.