root

Where do you find these things!?

 

Just what I needed after a long work day. Thanks.

Our club has allocated $300 to supplement our current library - mostly John Shaw

nature, Nikon "Masters of . . ." series, Adobe instructional, etc. I'd like to

expand the offerings that members can borrow to include important photographers'

works, both historical and contemporary. Do DVDs of this kind exist?

Just for the record, I was able get Color Matching to work. The trick is to get all your contrast adjustments, dodging, burning, etc done first, then adjust color later in the process, prior to image resizing and sharpening, etc.

I found lots of references to print legibility and resolution in general, but that's not what I'm getting at. Someone sitting in the front row of a theater will have to do a lot of "scanning" and won't be able to digest the screen content as a whole in the same way that someone sitting further back will. That is the only point I'm trying to get at. It's a matter of people sitting too close seeing the trees, rather than the forest.

I've heard that, and it seems awfully close. I just tested it on a 12 X 12 print, and found that I was looking at details from 2X, but more of the whole image at 4X. I would assume that the same would hold true on a larger scale.

I know it's a Windows only program, but I'm wondering if anyone has tried using

it on an Intel Mac using Crossover. Using Boot Camp and buying a copy of

Windows does not appeal to me.

I've found several web pages on viewing projected images that focus on

resolution, but not on what is optimal for actually processing the image content

as a whole. My sense is that if you sit too close to a screen, your viewing

angle could be too great. For example, what would you say is the minimum

seating distance when viewing a 6' X 8' screen? (1400 X 1050 projector, but

again, that's not relevant here.)

Pas de lieu rhone que nous.

I didn't have much luck with color match, although it looks like it's designed to do just what I'm looking for. What did work was your idea of using curves in separate channels, Pawel. I just tried it at only one point and can see that multiple points would work even better. Seems like a lot of trouble, but absent a sample comparison, I'll go with it.

 

Thank you both.

I have a series of images - http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=772208 -

that need to be corrected as accurately as possible. I'm guessing that I can

take a 100 x 100 pixel sample and then compare it to a similar sample in another

image. Am I going in the right direction, and if so, how do I then make the

conversion?

Most of these were shot with either a 10.5 fisheye or 12-24, so "in your face" isn't too much of an exaggeration. People react in various ways, as you can see. The only "subject" I actually spoke with first is the one with her hand in front of the camera, laughing the whole time.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=742817

Excellent feature!

Two ideas:

 

Go out just before sunset or just after sunrise.

 

Don't worry about your failure rate. Last session I got about twenty keepers out of two hundred and was delighted. Depends on your shooting style, subject, luck, etc.

Jim, if someone uses your low res web image as a large ad on a bus (it's happened) you don't mind, but if they use a higher res image for the same purpose, it bothers you? They profit off your image either way. The only difference is that the low res image doesn't look as good. I'm confused.

Gary Winogrand's apparent procrastination was intentional. He felt that it was necessary to leave the images from a shoot unexamined for a long time so that when he finally looked at them, he would see what was on the film, rather than remembering what was there that he shot.

 

Makes sense.

You're not reading what I wrote.

 

"the ratings system is due for an overhaul" doesn't answer the question of how it will work and more importantly what purpose it will serve.

" . . . a system that seems to have been originally based on trust and good faith of the subscribers."

 

To my knowledge, it was never limited to subscribers. Furthermore, the value of the system was based on the access to the system by a greater proportion of experienced photographers. If the revised system still attracts mostly newbies, then the people who are actually able to describe the contents of an image will be drowned out, as they are now. As long as there is no mechanism to attract teachers, rather than students, you will have a system that does no more than tell you what kind of photographs students like.

 

But maybe that's all the rating system was ever intended to to do, despite the forum's name.

 

I think Mike is right that any meaningful changes will drastically reduce the number of rates. Reducing the number of uploads might help to counter that trend, but that introduces other problems, like the ability to more easily find your friends' uploads and rate them anonymously.

 

It's been a year since the changeover, and I can appreciate what people are saying about the pace of IT development. What is less clear is why no one wants to explain exactly what they're trying to accomplish with those countless hours at the keyboard.

 

Not everyone's crucial fix necessarily corresponds to management's priorities. Fair enough. But no one has said they know what the plans are around here, Josh. Quite the contrary.

Freeman Patterson: "Photographing the World Around You"

 

I just bought "Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye". Also looks good for composition, design, etc.

Yeah . . .

 

Like that. :-)

These three would probably be what he is looking for:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4463953

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1016308

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6253828

I don't think James' images are on target at all.

 

Consider that Stephanie's interpretation of the emphasis of the assignment is to use framing, shooting, angle, lens, etc to create what Freeman Patterson calls a "balance" shot - multiple subjects "arranged" in a picture space (but not manually). The other three types of arrangements are: pattern(rhythm), dominance, and proportional placement. James' shots are (in order): dominance, dominance, pattern, pattern, dominance.

A "found still life" seems to be a contradiction in terms. Ask someone to show you photographs, paintings, etc of a still life, and you will get something that the artist has arranged. Your professor has gotten around this by shooting someone else's set up . . . not exactly original, since it's simply a record shot of someone else's sense of aesthetics. They're also apparently comprised of individual objects which themselves have been selected for their aesthetic appeal so they can be sold on that basis.

 

Is the emphasis on composing balance shots - more than one subject - or is it on "play it where it lies" aesthetic, which I would have thought required an unintentional haphazard arrangement made harmonious by framing, shooting angle, lens, etc.

If someone with an imagination, attention to detail, familiarity with the style, and the ability to write clearly has something to say about an image, I'm interested. A technical background that would explain how the shot was made might also be helpful, but is really a separate discussion.

This is a bit heavy handed. You can have it both ways by adjusting the opacity along with a few other tricks. Do a web search.

Yan, do you like Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?

 

So many things come into play here. Tolerance for tension, an inquisitive nature, exposure to new things, as well as some help by a "docent" (in the broadest sense.) It applies to everything - food, music, art, friends . . .

 

Sunsets and flowers cover the walls of millions of living rooms, but that's not necessarily the ultimate venue for a photograph (although I have seen some pretty interesting stuff there as well, albeit infrequently.)