John Peri

Glad to see that good sense prevails ultimately. That is why I kept silent until now.

 

Whereas the tone appears to have changed in view of the reactions elicited, or rather the absence of any success in provoking the reactions that you wanted, it would appear Mr Livekas that the only "offence" remaining on this page (as in other threads that you have contributed to recently) is your repeated referral to other people's work as "porn" or "soft porn" whatever that means, notably my own that, I quote from your previous posting of June 4th, you consider to be "mostly smutty petit porno snaps" and a nothing more than a "trophy catalogue".

 

Having insulted the author, and by association the models also, which is considerably worse, you have then gone on to imply how stupid such a large number of people are on PN are that follow these postings and give them favourable comments or ratings, those you call the "tailender group", adding ever diplomatically that no one of any substance is ever included among them. You call this the "Peri-phenomenon".

 

It would appear finally Mr Livekas that not many people share your opinion and I would suggest that you seek a new crusade in an area which is closer aligned to your area of expertise and understanding, where possibly your personal prejudices and dislikes may not influence your judgment and good manners.

I absolutely agree with Yianni. It would discourage many people who simply do not know how to or cannot be bothered to go further. It may also encourage us to show some work that we do not want to for that reason.

 

I like your paradigma with the sick patient! But first, you must be able to recognize the disease.

But then, even contributing ones can download them ....

I see that it was very naive of me to start this discussion. Thank you for clarifying the issue. John

Hy Lannie,

If photos are posted, then they are put at disposal for public view. The issue (for me) is not to have them associated with another author or, worse still, with a site that offers work of a disreputable kind. I am particularly concerned in this respect with the younger models that I photograph even if the photos that I show are selected very carefully.

Apologies, I must have misunderstood. However, if you click on a photo at ONE.MODEL.PLACE, you get a sign saying that copy is not possible, so surely there must exist a way of doing this ....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/showcase.cfm?ist=6

I came across a page on a Yahoo Photo Site (see text below) that

allows the contributor the option of deciding who can download his

photos. This is something that is missing from Photo net and that

would inspire a great deal more confidence in its members, were it to

be included.

Only yesterday, I was informed that several PN members incuding

myself had their photos pirated by an individual who posted them as

his own on Flickr.

John

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Configure who can see the option to download larger versions of your

photos.

 

Allowing downloads

Your Account /

 

This is a global setting. It applies to all of your photos, except

photos you have licensed with Creative Commons, (because doing that

means you're OK with people using it).

 

When people are looking at a photo page (e.g.), they will see a

button labelled "all sizes" underneath the photo title. From there,

they can download any of the different photo sizes available,

including the original file, unless you choose to prevent it.

 

Preventing people from downloading a photo also means that a

transparent image will be positioned over the photo on the photo

page, which is intended to discourage* people from right-clicking to

save the photo, or dragging the photo to their desktop.

 

If people are unable to access a photo of yours -- for example if

you've marked it as private -- they won't be allowed to download the

original photo either.

 

People with free accounts aren't able to offer their original image

files for download.

 

 

Who can download your photos?

Only You

Your Friends and/or Family

Your Contacts

Any Flickr User

Anyone (Recommended)

 

 

 

Or, return to your account page.

Jonathan, thanks for joining. I wonder finally if there are any rules or if they made up by us in the expectancy of critiques.

In between the jokes cracked on this page, I think that quite a lot of wisdom has come through, and I conclude that it's basically up to the photographer and the viewer to appreciate or not. The only premise I remain with is that appreciation is not based on technicalities, so much as on image quality in terms of impact and aesthetics. As both Tom and you rightly say however, one must nevertheless succeed in projecting one's message without irritating too much the spectator, be it either through negligence or ignorance. I've just posted a portrait of a young lady with a flower in her hair that is blown out. Now that is neither ... it's just incompetence!

Tom, I think you put it all in nutshell and I truly found your reply very useful. Thank you.

Hello David. I chose VOGUE as an example actually (American version), precisely because the arms, feet and hands always seem to be chopped out in it. I'll have to dig it up again and write to you privately, but it struck me in a recent issue that there were a majority of such so called failings in the first ten pages published.

Thank you Stephen, now that's memory indeed! I did remove the photo for the reason that you say. I just checked it in my file, and the arm and foot are lobbed off in my usual style! She was perfectly innocent as every child should be, but my photo made her appear more sensual than her age allows and I was wrong to post it in the first place. It was unintentional and naive on my part, apologies.

I am very grateful to all who contributed to this post and for the largely tolerant attitudes expressed. I shall refer to it in future when the remark on missing fingers comes up again.

Ken, thank you, but I truly was not looking for praise. I wanted reassurance that I am not just being stubborn in constantly refuting those that tell me to get my act together!

It is a sad offspring of the net, and unfortunately even of this site occasionally, that one can rarely start a conversation without it strangely somehow turning personal. It is possible that I am over sensitive or misinterpret, but I do admit to so much enjoy being spoken to with the same esteem and respect with which I address others. Maybe it is my age which has rendered me so. I do not understand what my integrity and motives that Mark alludes to have to do with this thread. I will nevertheless respond by explaining that my motive for posting the question on this page is that I continue to receive comments frequently under my photos regarding parts of the body that are missing in my pictures, blown out spots and other similar criteria. I do not question the right of a viewer to critique what he wants, and I enjoy the comments or I wouldn't post, but I am seriously faced with the challenge of whether I believe they are right or not in their appreciation of the artwork, and whether this should be put right, albeit at the risk of loss of spontaneity. Given that I probably have twice the age of the average contributor, I feel that I have had the time to look around and see what others do whose work I admire. Somehow, I am not convinced that the success of their endeavours is based very frequently on such considerations as the examples that I give, as I have equally come to the conclusion that the only thing that really counts is managing to draw the viewers' attention, after all photography is a visual art and not an exercise in mathematics. My referral to the (French) PHOTO which is a magnificent journal is a fair reference, since 50 000 photos are submitted every year by persons like ourselves, in an attempt to see their work in print in the January issue. Once again, having scrutinized this year's issue, I believe that almost none of the above considerations played any essential role in the pictures chosen. My reference to fashion magazines (take as an example VOGUE), in which today's top fashion/glamour photographers publish their photos is not hurried work, as someone implied further up, but very careful chosen images by professional photographic editors in an extremely tightly run, competitive and costly field. We are talking of thousands of dollars for a successful portfolio. Nobody, with such considerations at stake, is going to let up on horizons or missing fingers if they were to play a role. My conclusion is that we are wrong to constantly refer anyone but the beginner to the textbook. Let's promote the visual art instead. .... Robert X., thank you for your comment. I very much agree in the way in which you express your thought. It is not that the straight horizon per se is not necessary, it is that there are times when it does not come into play. It's rather like not seeing the forest because you are staring at the trees.

Thank you for your interesting reply Matt. My chosen area for presentation on PN incidentally is glamour, which I acknowledge is possibly less influenced by variations in what are said to be the rules. Nevertheless, are not the sales that you refer to above a measure of success? If one is prepared to put one�s money where one�s heart lies, I believe so. Admittedly, I do not buy PHOTO on a whim either and have kept each issue for over twenty years! My premise therefore is that to be successful, a photographer must cultivate the impact factor of his images and not try only to satisfy what he believes should be so but will have little influence on the outcome alone if it is. I don�t think that photography is a secretive activity to be shared only by a few connoisseurs. It is a medium of communication and in order to communicate one must attract attention. Straight horizons and ears will not necessarily do that, but they will not impede the image either if they are at fault.

There exists an area where I may possibly differ significantly in

opinion with several other participants on the site, and that is in

the importance given to straight horizons, missing ears and other

organs, burned out areas and other such like considerations which

have little to do, in my view, with the impact that an image can

have.

As I see it, through the work produced by many of the more

successful professionals and also by the pictures published by the

leading photographic magazines and fashion journals around the

world, �attention� is what an image should strive for and not praise

for technicality. This may be particularly, though not exclusively

so in the area that I have chosen to share with my friends on PN and

which, incidentally, is just one among several other subjects that I

photograph.

PHOTO claims to have the widest circulation of any photographic

magazine produced. It may be of interest to some to browse through

the images that are selected for publication every month of January

among the fifty thousand entries received every year for their

annual competition. They are often far from what one would imagine

by reading through the pages of PN.

... and I thought people were only sick of nudes :-)

... Happy New Year to all, with everyone able to express themselves, John

"Aesthetics", yes, a primary concern in photography. I may arouse some anger from the more purist among us in saying

this :-) ... but there is a lot of exchange on PN that centres around the rules, and particularly the necessity to always keep horizons straight and not to cut off ears, hands and feet, and the rest of it., What rules, who wrote them? Let me bring forward that few if any of the truly successful commercial photographers today give two hoots about such considerations, nor do the top fashion and photographic magazines in which they publish their work, to cite VOGUE and PHOTO just for examples. In my view, for a photo to have "impact" and be aesthetically pleasing, it must be striking and draw attention, and not correspond to any textbook pre-conceived ideas of what should or should not be done.

Sorry to be back, but one cannot add directly onto a previous posting in this section .... I think that Robert says it very well above. Newton displayed women in a way that made them look powerful and in control. I would imagine that is why "upper class" women I refer to identify with his photos.

I don't think that one has to objectify women or be a sexist, in order to bring out their beauty on film, but I appreciate that everyone has a right to his opinion on that. Newton nevertheless created a whole new approach to fashion photography which will remains in the annals of art and photography. As all innovators are, the man was brilliant in his field, whether we identify with his work or not.

Contrary to what is said above also, there may well be a class issue involved here, since Helmut's work was essentially destined to promote fashion in the higher price echelon. If his photos were not appreciated by women in this category, the clothes that he was promoting would not sell and he would have been a failure.

If I point my SB800 (with a NIKON D70) directly at a subject with a TTL setting, the photo is always dark, particularly around the edges. I am a total idiot when it comes to technology, but I really don't see what I am doing wrong! Any advice from anyone? Thanks, John

I have also been trying to change a couple of pictures for several days now without success. Worse, once I have made this attempt, the remaining picture is dostorted!

Hope this is figured out soon!

Regards, John

This is what I get on my screen:

 

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.

AOLserver/4.0 on http://www.photo.net

Just for the record ...I am attributed a remark above which I never submitted. I guess it is one of the quirks of the internet scene!

Actually, I have given up on the Kodak and am using Fuji nowdays. It gives overall softer tones. John

I think the reason why the splitting image diseappears is because you put your right hand in front of the range finder window wich is the small window located below the shutter speed dial. It often happened to me when I take the camera vertically. Hope this remark helps you.

This is all fine, but what do we do in the meantime? We have an "abuse" address which just responds by an automated message!

I have a lady to whom I wrote politely telling her not to make abusive ratings in an anonymous manner. She responded 1/ by saying that I was harassing her(!) and 2/ by posting my full name with an insulting comment as a caption to the three pictures that she posted:

 

http://www.photo.net/general-comments/comment-edit-2.tcl

 

What on earth can I do about something like that?!

 

I really feel that we should not allow persons that have not posted a minimum of say 10 picturtes themselves, to be allowed to anonymously rate other persons.

 

John