>>3148845>They dodged and burned in colored printing paper with different color filter settings and chose the appropriate film stock that would list the characteristic settings described in this thread.In a minority of cases of what we would consider "classic" photos.
You're still conflating the commercial photography world with the art world, seemingly oblivious to the fact that many of this techniques exist for commercial print due to differences in the type of paper upon which the photographs are printed.
>I'd rather have this thread than another gear thread or Sugar thread.As much as I hate Sugar, I'd rather have more photo threads than threads where-in people convince themselves that they're artists because they can analyze channels in photoshop. This is every bit as cringey as "composition general threads" where we post golden spirals to overlay on our photos.
Stop it and post some photos or, maybe just don't post at all. This is a photography board, not a commercial printmaking on shitty high-gloss low-expenditure magazine paper board.
Post photographs or fuck off.
>It's not, but that doesn't make them mutually exclusive. The photographers listed here are not regarded in the same way as Jason Lanier.Nor are they regarded in the same way as David Alan Harvey or Steve McCurry. They're not regarded by anyone at all except for people that involve themselves in the world of commercialism. To think they are is just as ignorant as to think that your average movie-goer stays through the credits specifically to see who the lead gaffer on a production was.
>This is an opinion. It's not an opinion. They are objectively vapid photographs of celebrities and fashion models that have a limited lifespan of interest outside of the insular community that created them. They aren't even well executed. For example, the third image in
>>3144835 which has distracting elements that could easily have been left out had the photographer cared. You shouldn't care if he didnt.
