 |
never!
Posted 49 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Likewise! :)
Posted 49 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
sk8rsherman [deleted] says:
hahahaha!
Posted 48 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yes, giammai! :)
Posted 48 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Why not call your group pissing around in Photoshop, this has nothing to do with Cross Processing!!
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(
permalink
)
James Thomas Rowe edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
andyhewittlock [deleted] says:
Canon EOS 350D - £500
Sigma wide angle lens - £200
Adobe Photoshop - £150
Tweaking your photos so they look like they were taken on a lomo - priceless
:-D
Posted 48 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
hahahahahaha
Posted 48 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Why? Because we're not all one-trick ponies. Why? Because I can shoot, then cross-process, and print, all without leaving my remote Cornish studio.
Digital cross-processing: because we don't all live in a city, and some of us think faster than film can keep up with. Equal cross-processing rights for all!
Experimentation for all!
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Its not cross processing, because your not doing any processing.
Its called...(ahem!) cheating!!
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
KezzyKez edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
blue you stay in your remote cornish studio and piss around with potatoshop
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
photoshop is computergraphic arts// xprocessing film is photographic arts..I hate potatoshop...
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The problem with simulating the effect in Photoshop is that you are doing it in a very naiive and unorigional fashion. Part of the beauty of crossprocessing is that you could get funky colors in the eighties before everybody had Photoshop.
If you are going to spend time in photoshop, do something like Cymagen does.
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I agree with the above. Photography is one thing, computer technology is another...and sometimes they are mixed. Digital crossprocessing is almost an oxymoron. Why even take the picture to begin with? Might as well just get into CG in my opinion. I do appreciate some digital photography but a digital picture of a flower just isn't special anymore. I saw Cymagen's stuff and I do like that...it's creative.
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
andyhewittlock [deleted] says:
Digital cross-processing offers too much control over the finished product. Real cross-processing doesn't.
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Dropped by to check out some of the great work over here, but phew, you lot [the stroppy ones in the thread above] really need to get over yourselves and chill out. one-sided view? live and let live? there are so many bigger issues out there for you all to get heated about than this.
Don't forget, you're using a computer, a scanner, who knows what else, I use a film camera, darkroom, and chemicals, besides digital, so what's the difference between us? I was a luddite once.
I'm off to a happier more open-minded place. See ya.
Posted 47 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Wow... we've got some very closed minded people in this group. I feel sorry for those who think that cross processing film and cross processing in photoshop are diametrically opposed.
Luddites indeed. I am surprised you even consented to view your photos online. I mean, they couldn't do that in the 80's either...
Posted 41 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Cross Processing - FILM ONLY /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Cross Processing - FILM ONLY discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
