steviewander

Forgive me if this has been brought up before as I've been out of the photo.net community for a couple years. I find it interesting, after

perusing the 'top photos' gallery, in recent years, that the photos that capture the best ratings are almost exclusively over-saturated, over-

sharpened, over-processed images that, no doubt, have little resemblance to the original file. Of course, many are absolutely gorgeous;

even works of art, but it's sad to see photographers who shoot a more 'natural' look, or God forbid, still use film, get left in the dust. Of

course there are exceptions and I'm not saying ALL top photos/photographers follow this rule. Just a huge percentage.

 

Now, I'll admit I was always a fan of Velvia and Kodak VS, which is far from natural, but nothing compared to the grossly manipulated

images I'm seeing today. Many landscapes now days are so surreal they look almost animated or like something out of the Lord of the

Rings. So now that I'm part of the digital community (and it's about time!), I think I'll just ramp-up my post-processing and see what

happens. : )

 

On the other hand, there are those images that are obvious photoshop creations that have no intention of representing reality, and many

are just awesome and show real creative talent, then there are the ones who claim no manipulation but are tipping the scale just a little bit

too much. It's always a tough call as what looks 'good' is always such a subjective matter.

 

I know, I know, the age-old question: where do we draw the line?

I just bought the 5D (body only) from Amazon for $1799.95 in July. I believe that included an instant $300 rebate. And it was

sold by Amazon, not one of their affiliates. I thought that was a pretty good deal, no? Cheaper than everyone else including

B&H.

Brian M, it clearly says (in my workspace page) that 'Your Portfolio' address is photo.net/

photos/steviewander. I remember the photo.net/photodb page, which I recall takes people to

the sign in page. I don't send that link. BTW, I periodically clear my cookies and it has never

forced me to log back on the photo.net on my next visit.

 

And, yes, Bob, I am confused, which is why I posted the question.

Interesting... when I cut and paste my address (while I'm logged on) and send it in an

email,

the link comes up logged in, but when I type the address out by hand (i.e. type http://etc.)

it

doesn't; even though the addresses are exactly the same. There must be some kind of

'indicator' in the cut and paste version that knows I'm logged on...?

 

Maybe someone who knows more about computers that I do knows why.

 

Steve

Question: If I give out my "Your Portfolio" web address, will people viewing it be logged on

under my name? A friend wants to include my link on her website, but I'm afraid that some

viewers may become 'involved' in the site and start rating people's photos under my name

(which happened to me once before years ago).

 

Thanks,

Steve

I vote for a filter that eliminates everthing BUT the nudes.

Thanks Glen! I was considering underexposing the background by decreasing the exposure on the camera body as you suggested, but was unsure if that would also affect the exposure of the subject (i.e. further underexpose it). I'm guessing it wouldn't affect the output on the flash, but it must do a 'global' underexposure, which, in a sense, would further underexpose the subject, right?? Does that make sense?? : )

I always seem to have trouble finding the right balance between fill

flash and background lighting on outdoor portraits. Everyone always

says to decrease the flash output for more 'natural' results, but

this always seems to underexpose my subjects. Moreover, my

backgrounds are, more often than not, blown out. I use EOS IV with

540 EZ flash usually with a Lumiquest bounce. The flash always

indicates (with the green indicator light) that the subject has

received enough light. Does it matter if I'm using aperture vs.

shutter priority? Can anyone recommend how to get a more consistent

balance?? I usually just use matrix metering... Thanks.

I'm sitting in Cuenca Ecuador right now; I brought 125 rolls of film. No one even asked. I wouldn't worry, but I seem to recall that someone in some country once questioned all my film...

Hope you don't plan on photographing people in Ecuador. If you do, you'll be spending most of your time in internet cafes like me! I think I had 3 prosperous days out of 30. If it's landscapes you like, there's plenty of ops... most beautiful country I've ever seen. I'll be in Ecuador for a few more days if you have any specific questions, just email me.

Steve

"I don't think they even gave it a hard look"

I'm not sure if that's good news or bad news.

Actually E100GX replaces E100SW (a warmer version of E100G) E100VS is still E100VS.

You can use Jodhpur to break the journey. See the blue city, spend one night, then catch a

train to Jaisalmer. If I recall, it wasn't THAT far (maybe a 8hr ride or less??). Anyway, it

should take priority over Jaipur! (Again, just MHO!!) Heck, you've flown all the way to India,

what's 8 hours more on a train!! : )

I found Udaipur to be just ok... and that's a lot farther than Jaisalmer; flights ain't cheap

either.

It also depends on what you like... Jaipur is a (fairly) big city, with congestion, pollution

and crowds.. whereas Jaisalmer is a small layed-back town; picturesque and quiet.

Have fun, I'm jealous!

Here's my 2-cents: Jaisalmer for sure. One of the most beautiful little towns, and certainly

a highlight of my 6-week trip to India last year. Don't miss it. We stayed there 4 nights and

could have stayed longer. I personally found Jodhpur disappointing (photographically, and

otherwise). You'll see what I mean when you get there. Of course, the blue area of the city

has some potential for photography (I assume your planning on doing some photography).

 

Jaipur is a big congested city, but, yes, it's interesting. I was there 4 nights but thought

that was 1 or 2 too many. I prefer smaller towns and I really liked Pushkar, but that was

during the camel fair. The color and culture there was unbeatable. Not sure what it's like

during the rest of the year; quiet, I'm guessing. Another town that I loved, was Bundi.

Small and colorful and the people maybe just too nice! If I were to go back, I would spend

3 in Jaipur, one day in Jodhpur, 3 in Jaisalmer and 2 in Bundi.

 

Have a blast where ever you decide to go!

Steve

IMHO, your best bet would be to visit a small town on market day. Each town has their

market day on a specific day of the week. That is the best time to interact with the locals

and get some good (albeit demanding!) photos of the people. If you prefer architecture,

then Antigua's the best place in the country. For landscapes, anywhere in the highlands,

but lake Atitlan

is stunning (as mentioned above). Can't think of any towns with good markets close

enough to Antigua for a day trip, though. Have fun!

Asking a photographer what kind of camera he uses is no different from asking an author

what kind of typewriter he uses.

Guatemala is such a colorful country; personally I like the saturated Kodak E100VS for just

about

everything, including portraits, although I do get a fair number of comments regarding

oversaturation. I also bring along about an equal amount of E100GX which is a better

choice for skin tones, but lacks the vibrancy I like from the VS. Throw in a few rolls of Fuji

Provia400F (which can easily be pushed to 800) and you're good to go.

 

It's the same inventory I take on every trip. Check out my Guatemala photos (or any other

folder, for that matter) and see if my results suit your taste.

Have fun, Guatemala is so beautiful, but you will find photographing people a real

challenge!

I say just borrow Steve's and then decide. But since he's in Guatemala right now you'll have to wait till he gets home!

Hey Cathy, here I am! Sitting in an e-mail cafe waiting for happy hour and my next margarita. More later!

We'll talk later,

ST

What to bring to Morocco?

Patience, and lots of it.

Patience, and lots of it.

On a trip to India last year, I must have passed through 13

airports (and therefore 13 X-ray machines!) and was never once

denied a hand inspection. I do admit, though, that on a couple of

occasions I was too lazy and just put it through. My patient wife

has to wait each time they inspect 125 rolls.

In Milan, Italy, however, I was told that if I wanted to fly on this

airplane, I had to put my film through. No budging in THAT

country!

The Pushkar Camel Fair is great!

Don't be fooled (like I was) in thinking that a super fast lens (and therefore faster shutter speed) will solve all your problems. I recently took my new Canon 100mm f2.0 to India just for portraits and was sorely disappointed when most of my shots (shot wide open) were off focus; the DOF was SO shallow that getting the focus perfect on the eyes was almost impossible (even w/auto focus). And those where the focus on the eyes was good, the DOF was too shallow to make a good portrait. What to do now!!???

Chris, these are portraits he's shooting, not sports photography. I think he's talking about inadvertant movement of the subject. That's the way I interpreted it, anyway. Besides, show my one panned photograph with a perfectly still subject and I would be might impressed for sure. : )

Abhishek,

 

100 ISO should be more than adequate for portraits, unless, of

course, your subject is in motion. If your subject is still, shutter

speeds down to 1/15 sec can work well, but > 1/30 sec is best.

 

Are you sure you aren't confusing motion blur with depth of field?

When you say 'blurry' is there ANY part of the photo that's clear,

such as a cheek or the tip of the nose?? If so, it's probably not

motion blur.

 

I use 400 speed inside trains because it's so dark in there and

you DO want an adequate shutter speed. 100 or 200 ain't going

to cut it unless there's PLENTY of natural light in that train!

 

But you're right, I wouldn't use 400 in bright conditions.

 

I haven't seen your work, so I hope the above hasn't insulted your

intelligence! : )

Steve

Why are some of my vertical format photos uploading smaller

than other vertical format photos when all have been sized

exactly the same? I'm talking about the thumbnails in my folder.

Anyone know what I (or photo.net [but probably me]) am doing

wrong??

Thanks,

Steve