[Jim]

MY EYE'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lagerstarfish]

That actually does make my eyes hurt

I can't work out whether my screen is fucked or it's just retina burn

[SA Chris]

It's as sharp as a bag of wet mice too.

[Eddies]

How on earth this ended up on the Moon site I have no idea!
Check out his worryingly deformed left arm!

[fried]

http://photo-tropism.com/bleau-a-bloc/blog/2010/03/27/91-1-rouge-2b-red6b/?cat=1

Found this on the disturbingly named 'bleau-à-bloc' site, on a quite day at work.

Can't show the photo 'cos it's part of a slideshow.

[lemony]

Did you mean this one: http://photo-tropism.com/bleau-a-bloc/blog/2010/03/28/flipper-6a/?cat=1 ?

[fried]

Ooops! Yes, that would be it.

[JamieG]

The background was that out of focus, truly it was! Clickety

[some_fat_punter]

I'm not talking about manipulation as such; its more the fact that just processing a RAW file involves subjective input. Before that ended when you chose the film.

Don't know if this has been pulled up before, but it is plain wrong.    Film photographers have always manipulated images at both the negative and print stages, everything from a simple bit of dodge and burn through pushing iso and cross-processing and beyond.   

Not that I want to defend the garish over-saturated pap that is now normal.   (and don't get me started on HDR...)

[SA Chris]

Guessing he means slide film.

[Johnny Brown]

I did yes. It rightly seems a bit of a bald statement taken out of context like that. The context being:

Its a fact that our perception of what is 'realistic' in a photograph over the last twenty years has been determined by the characteristics of a couple of films

90% of the climbing photos published in the eighties and nineties were taken on a handful of slide films - the most common being Kodachrome 64 and Velvia 50. Repro was handled by the magazines - the photographer had no input. Both films have very specific looks that were subconsciously engrained in our minds as correct, or at least realistic colour. With digital you've got at least 8 or so jpeg profiles to choose from on each camera, plus the infinite tweaking of RAW, and the lottery of keeping consistent colour through the workflow and across different monitors. IE now everyone is outputting their own variation on what looks 'right', many of which will look wrong or manipulated to others...

[coulster]

Some classics for the hall of shame in this link http://www.8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.aspx?ArticleId=7493.

A great rack worthy of DFBWGC in there too for an added bonus. 

[coulster]

FAIL!

[northerngreg]

Some classics for the hall of shame in this link http://www.8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.aspx?ArticleId=7493.

A great rack worthy of DFBWGC in there too for an added bonus. 

What you meant was this:

http://www.8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.aspx?ArticleId=7493

And yes - they're shameful.

[iain_cbr]

They truly are dismal!!!!

[Jaspersharpe]

Jesus wept! 

[namnok]

they were bad

[Beegsyboy]

http://www.8a.nu/images/gallery/10097_634438422025072879.jpg

What the f*** is on going here!!!

[slackline]

He's got a strong aura, man.

[SA Chris]

When HDR goes wrong(er).

[Fiend]

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=177154

Pointless tinkering b2b ludicrous grade. Winner!

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

https://twitter.com/#!/BarnabyEdwards/status/151923223443931136/photo/1

[dave]

Gag.

[SA Chris]

gads.

[Jaspersharpe]

How has that won a prize?