Children in Wales

Tris, this is too good a photograph and Ian is too good a photographer for the discussion to be hijacked by your posts. You have started posting multiple successive comments again, like some demented defender of an imaginary castle, pouring boiling oil on anything that moves beneath the walls. Come on, please slow down a bit.

 

Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter in the long run, and you shouldn't mistake silence on the part of your co-debaters as agreement. They might just be weary of being shouted down and slagged-off. You don't have a monopoly on wisdom or understanding of the history of art, criticism or technique here. I'm not contending that every comment made on these pages is of the highest intellectual quality, but they don't all have to be individually responded to by you as some sort of self-appointed moderator of the site.

 

Your own skill is to have a way of enraging people by making dogmatic statements in a pompous, condescending manner. Leave it be, please. You've been very well behaved the past few PoWs, why not keep up the good citizenship?

 

The odd pompous or arrogant comment is fine, even entertaining, but you take yourself (and your "responsibilities") way too seriously and push our generosity too far.

 

This is a good photograph, from a great portfolio, by an underrated member of photo.net. Let him and his work have their moment in the limelight, please.

Tris.

Just to broaden your understanding a little more, this discussion of colour vs. shape is the sort of useless yawn-inspiring stuff that would make me give up photography altogether if I actually had to consider it seriously or routinely. Knowledge of rules is about as important in the production of language as it is in art: it looks to have played a part when analysing post hoc, but in reality has little to do with what actually occurred in the mind.

There are far more interesting and constructive ways to critique pictures.

Sorry, Tony, but I've no intention of "behaving" according to your lights. Neither do I suppose my small efforts here have "hijacked" this thread. Everyone is welcome to participate. Why so few do is a good question, that so few do is the problem.

As for the rest of it . . . talk about "pompous" all you want, but I'd take down your mirrors first. "Generosity" indeed. :)

Tris, ( I know, I hate to start him up again folks)

Maybe my monitor on my little Powerbook is too light? Dunno, never have seen the work on other ones. Can anyone tell if they think it is too dark, that might make the color too saturated, especially if consistantly so.

 

There are some red flowers in a tree outside right now that look so bright and colorful, they look "Photoshopped" Food for thought on color, huh? I see the world in color and black and white, it depends on what I am pre-visualizing.

I had color film in the camera when I first saw Snowy animal tracks, I just saw it in Black and white.

 

Threading the needle in Australia,

 

db

 

 

James, I agree, shooting available light is always a challenge, in the snow it must be more challenging still. I haven't worked with color emulsions with snow all around--I used to live in Wisconsin and started photography in that environment, but again, I only used Tri-X back then, never color films.

Just as a guess the reflections off the various snow surfaces must play wicked tricks with your color temperature, though most of this effect should be easily correctable in software--I use Paint Shop Pro v7.04 because it's so much cheaper, primarily, but I've also tried Photoshop and a couple of others like Wright and so on, and they all offer the same basic tools for these issues. You might also wish to look into a filter called iCorrect Pro which can be found here:

iCorrect Pro

It's somewhat pricey but I've tried the demo and it seems to work as billed, at least in some applications. I'm not going to pop but it might well be the perfect tool for you.

If you feel the film you've exposed is shot then I guess pitching it's in order, though I'd try working with it first in software. As for giving up on color emulsions in difficult light settings: hell, that's the fun of it for me and the reason I push on. If all I wanted was a useable image the easy way I'd buy an Olympus E-20.

I've never used Kodak EPL. What are its characteristics?

Just to broaden your understanding a little more, this discussion of colour vs. shape is the sort of useless yawn-inspiring stuff that would make me give up photography altogether if I actually had to consider it seriously or routinely.

No one's forcing anything on you and you're free to ignore what you find of no interest.

Knowledge of rules is about as important in the production of language as it is in art: it looks to have played a part when analysing post hoc, but in reality has little to do with what actually occurred in the mind.

You are mistaken. It is just is refusal to avail oneself of knowledge (of rules) which often enough leads to both bad art and bad language usage. Now "art" is more difficult to define by its nature, and so it's not as easy to pin down when it comes rules and such, though some art rules are widely accepted and for good reason. With language, ignorance of rules almost always leads to nothing better than poor description and thus worse communication. Of course you have the "right" to have it your own way if you so choose, but I'm here to tell you it won't get you any place beneficial fast.

There are far more interesting and constructive ways to critique pictures.

There are? Name one.

Quick Tris, someone else disagreed with you... over on the southern battlements! Hurry! (bring your boiling oil).

Quick Tris, someone else disagreed with you... over on the southern battlements! Hurry! (bring your boiling oil).

This is silly, Tony. Instead of trying to bait me, why not exercise yourself more fruitfully with a cogent assessment of my remarks which you find to be somehow in error. Perhaps everyone would be better off for that effort.

What you presently engage in is childish behavior--about what I would expect from a kid in fifth grade.

Your basic conceit is exposed by the implicit assertion, contained in your last statement, that I can only be "fruitful" by responding to and cogently assessing YOUR remarks. Otherwise, you contend, I am acting in a childish manner.

 

What an ego you have, Tris.

 

Please, don't feel obliged to "cogently assess" this post of mine. Your silence would be reward enough.

I like the photo for all the reasons listed above...but what I find amazing about this shot is that it was taken in 1975.

Maybe this should be a topic for another thread but one of the main enjoyments of the internet has been to see shots like this...that most likely would have been filed away in a shoebox in the attic had the web not come along.

It gives us all a chance to see beyond what the established media wants us to see. In the past, all we had access to was what the major magazines decided was good enough for us to see.

How many more treasures await us that are currently buried in closets or garages?

What an age we live in.

I'm afraid I know nothing about Ektachrome, James. Have you tried Kodachrome 64? That's one hell of an emulsion--the colors are gorgeous and about as "accurate" as it comes. It's not cheap, though, and awful slow for night work--I should talk with my Konica 50 taking forever to expose at 3 o'clock in the morning. :)

Try downloading that iCorrect demo and see if it does what you want. If it does I can tell you the same (or similar) effect can be achieved in other software, just not as fast.

Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on what your mind's eye remembers in terms of colors. All films will render scenes differently and no film is truly accurate but rather a compromise. It's the end result that matters and if you can work with your exposures to achieve something pleasant then that's a good thing.

I'd love to view your work. Any chance you'd upload some in the future for a gander?

"With language, ignorance of rules almost always leads to nothing better than poor description and thus worse communication."

Tris, you're obviously out in left field here and display remarkable ignorance of current research and understanding in the branches of cognitive science/psychology that deal with the issues at hand. One begins to wonder how many other things you merely think you understand well enough to lecture others about.

"Of course you have the 'right' to have it your own way if you so choose, but I'm here to tell you it won't get you any place beneficial fast."

Do you really fail to see how any normal person would find this an incredibly arrogant and offensive thing to say?

Your basic conceit is exposed by the implicit assertion, contained in your last statement, that I can only be "fruitful" by responding to and cogently assessing YOUR remarks.

You're off base. It isn't my remarks that should be srtictly addressed but those of everyone. Instead of this you (and others) choose to go after the person and ignore the substance of what has been said. That's an old old problem and it doesn't fly with me.

Otherwise, you contend, I am acting in a childish manner.

That is precisely what your actions are, right here and now--immature to the point of bordering on the infantile. And you don't get it.

More sadness.

Do you have anything concrete whatsoever to add to this discussion? If so, please present it. I for one would like to read what you have on your mind. I only ask that you and everyone else keep it centered on photography and not personalities, egocentric issues or this cozy "club" mentality which pervades all too many areas of this server.

You mentioned before that Ian's photo ought to be the centerpiece of this discussion. Well, then whoop it up, Tony, for in a manner it is insofar as his image has seemed to provoke some (not much) thoughtful discussion about photography per se as opposed to the usual nonsensical slop.

Boy, what a pity it is when a site supposedly devoted to the study and appreciation of photography comes up with worthy pictures back to back for its POW feature, to have this effort then generate genuine talk about photography, which itself only comes to "bore" some of this site's "movers and shakers."

Life's tough all over, ain't it?

Umm didn't these silly arguments about color and b/w get solved in the 60's?

Vuk, first of all you correct me on something without offering any semblance of a better alternative, then you go on to parse my style for any possibility of potential offense given.

Dumb. Total waste of time. Nothing whatsoever to with photography. In a nutshell, pretty much what I've come to expect from some (many) of the people who populate this site.

In any event, what I write can't possibly offend you or anyone else. Only you can take offense, and that owes its responsibility to something inside you, not to anything I've written. Another truth for you, another truth I doubt youy're willing to embrace.

Your remarks re art and language and "rules" are hogwash. But go ahead and prove me wrong. For you see the difference between you and I is that I won't be embarrassed one jot if you can prove me to be mistaken, in fact I'd thank you. But first you have to prove it, and so far all you've done is to beat your gums.

Please, go ahead and show me how "rules" have no bearing on correct language usage or the learning of it thereof. I'm all ears.

David, I don't understand your comment. Do you mean to suggest that with the advent of color television our "brave new world" was somehow brought kicking and screaming into the present colorized age? Or that B&W as an art medium is somehow passe? What's going on?

I see B&W and color film media as being distinct if similar tools to the same photographic challenges, and I don't get an attitude which deems the issues at hand to be unworthy of discussion.

I admit I could be reading you wrong, but then your remark was somewhat cryptic.

Ahh, that's better. Flawless photo.

Bravo.

 

Tris, you're going to get carpal tunnel. Watch out.

Your remarks re art and language and "rules" are hogwash. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Tris

I am not going to bore everyone here with what's required to explain this to you, but I can point you to articles in peer-reviewed journals. You see, I've actually studied the "hogwash" in graduate school with some of the most respected experts in the field (and carried out a bit of related research of my own, though it was not my area of specialization).

Tuesdays are slow nights for me. Nothing happens on a Tuesday. It's almost as if God had a space to fill in the old calendar and so he just tossed a Tuesday card in there, and no one ever did much with it. As a result I have loads of time Tuesdays (as a rule) for forum activities. As this discussion has involved itself more than others with photographic concerns I've bothered to issue replies over the past couple of hours, although unfortunately many of my replies have necessarily addressed issues (personal) other than photographic ones.

That's a shame but nothing new.

You'll be happy to know that my hands are in great shape. I did develop a crick in my neck the other day which I took to a chiropractor yesterday. And I feel much better now. Thanks!

I think Daniel's right...it's about pre-visualization. Some scenes or moments scream color, others need black and white.A good photographer knows when to use one or another. I only use B & W not because Im a B & W snob, simply because I can't afford to pay a lab to process all my mistakes. B & W affords me the opportunity to learn at a price I can stomach. Tony, your comments speak for many photo.net users. I've been following this forum just to see where it might go and just gotta put my 2 cents in here. When I first joined photo.net I rather enjoyed the banter that Tris provided and felt that it was lighthearted and fun and good for sparking interesting threads of conversation. He also, IMHO seemed to have alot of knowledge (which is why I'm here, to learn from those with many years of experience)Now....sorry Tris, I scroll through your responses (and I always know which ones they are as I begin - chapter length narcissistic rhetoric). I would very much like to hear what you have to say, it's just so unpleasant to read through. I don't want to get in a spitting match with you, but I did want you to know that what you have to say is clouded by your delivery. I also think poor Ian's parade has been rained on a bit here by all the shouting you boys are doing!!

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jennifer, but it's not my ego that's in the way of progress around here but that of others. That ought to be plain. That it is not speaks volumes.

No matter, I don't intend to spit on you just because you disagree. Frankly, though, all I hear is that you're not prepared for someone to come on this forum and call a spade a spade. That, too, is an old problem, and while I don't imagine I can solve the world's many issues I'm not about to conform to societal standards which I find dreadfully useless and low.

I need and have to go my own way, and that's a decision I made years ago. I guess the primary difference between you and I is that I have no driving desire to see you conform to my views or to follow in my footsteps. Society, of course, would have it elsewise, but then when you think on it where did society ever ultimately get anyone except to the doorstep of warfare because of greed and class struggle?

Thanks, but I know that I know better than that, and whatever I've become along the way I think it's far more functional than the collective.

A suggestion: Just ignore him. There's nothing that will shut someone up as quickly as making them talk into a void. Pleas, logical argument, or simple requests to make fewer, shorter postings are never going to work. If you don't like someone hijacking the discussion, don't encourage it by biting back. Just ignore him, and comment on the photo instead.

 

This photo is great. Perfect execution, a real moment in time. The backyards included in the composition make it a great slice of life. Even having grown up on the other side of the world in PNG, it really sparks memories of my youth.

 

Does anyone else feel the need for a slight increase in contrast? I initially thought so. I now think the light drabness of the surrounding image really hammers home the liveliness of the boys running. They don't care that they're living in a concrete jungle - they're on their way to do something fun. Great shot!

It could be worse. Imagine having a long ride in his cab.

I don't know where you come from Mr. Cahill but to put down the Polaroid SS4000 is to do no favors to anyone thinking of buying a quality 35mm scanner. It's arguably the best available today on balance, at its present price it simply can't be touched. It will soon be replaced with the SS4000+ for considerably more dollars and, from what I've heard, only incremental improvement to the scans.

Interesting you should mention an upgrade to the firmware. There happens to be one available and yes, I've downloaded it and it seems to work just fine.

I'd guess you have nothing further to add than to slam me for taking on this forum's more charming regulars at their own game, so I'll leave it there and wish you a good evening. :)

It could be worse. Imagine having a long ride in his cab.

Yeah, imagine that. Being driven along by a cabbie who speaks good English and feels comfortable discussing something other than the weather or the latest Packers game. (Who happened to win on Monday night, though they made it look difficult in the process.)