david_senesac

March 30, 2017

I've been rather hard core in the field here in California from before many on this board were born. Beside considerable day hiking, I've backpacked extensively over 4 decades. In 2014 I put away my 4x5 Wisner Expedition and since have been using a Sony A6000 system focus stack blending and multi column row stitch blending with a manual panoramic head. If a pro interested in large images isn't blending multiple frames they are being left in the dust. Thus am still making large images that are tack sharp top to bottom, left to right, corner to corner. I recently returned from 10 days in the Sonora Desert shooting the major wildflower bloom occurring after this especially wet winter and tomorrow head out again on an extended road trip into the Carrizo Plain and Mojave Desert areas. For my latest work in the deserts including how it is done start on Page 2 of this 2017 Index page:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/2017_Trip-Chronicles-0.html

http://www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/QK02281-02326-3x2vw.jpg

enlarged vertical slice view:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/QK02281-02326-3x2vsl.jpg

David

http://www.davidsenesac.com/2016_Trip_Chronicles/2016_Trip-Chronicles-0.html

http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/2015_Trip-Chronicles-0.html

http://www.davidsenesac.com

October 3, 2016

Dated thread as the OP has already gone on his backpacking trip. In any case will add my two cents belatedly at the end for the sake of those searching later with similar questions. First I'm an old of several decades landscape and nature photographer that has probably backpacked more with significant weights of camera gear than anyone else on this board and am still getting out a lot as a senior. www.davidsenesac.com/2016_Trip_Chronicles/2016_Trip-Chronicles-0.html It is definitely possible to carry significant weights of camera gear while backpacking if reasonably fit however expect to not be able to endure as much vertical uphill nor miles. And the effort when beyond about 4 miles and 1500 feet of vertical is probably too mentally strenuous for most people to cope with even though their body might be able to do so. The key to carrying more weight is going slow and stopping frequently. That could mean one won't be able to easily reach more remote wilderness destinations. As for carrying gear, generally camera gear is more robust than people expect so one can get by with far less padding than expected. One doesn't need to protect gear as though one expects to toss a pack off a cliff. For years I carried a Wisner Expedition 4x5 view camera and never broke anything in my pack. Like you know, a camera with a fragile 4 by 5 inch ground glass. And before that for years a big 6x7 medium format. I put both the camera and the several lenses inside simple cardboard shipping boxes with no nada zero padding that went into a large day pack loosely. This page on my website shows that gear. http://www.davidsenesac.com/Backpacking/david_backpacking.html I haven't carried the view camera since 2013 so that page is dated as I've significantly reduced weight with a mirrorless system and can make even larger images with multi row column stitch blending using a panoramic head. But much of my packing strategy is the same. The camera and usually 4 lenses go in ordinary nylon soft cases that are not overly padded all of which plus a lot of associated photo gears goes into an Osprey Talon 22 daypack that I use 2 bunjis to strap atop the top back of my Osprey Aether 70 backpack. I tend to just toss the larger items in without special placement. Nothing in my pack has to this point been damaged even though I am not one to be gentle tossing the backpack about. Note the Talon has 4 smaller zippered compartments that I put a list of small items into. The advantage of strapping a daypack onto the back of a backpack is the contents are much easier to get at when stopping on a trail and one can easily disconnect the daypack and wander off elsewhere without the main pack. Also because I often tend to semi base camp, using a daypack makes day hiking out in remote basins more functional. Total weight on a couple 9-day and 10-day trips this summer (out of four summer 2016 trips) was a bit below 60 pounds that included about a dozen pounds of food. Note I'm a 66" 138# lightweight old guy haha.

David Senesac

October 3, 2016

For this person within a world where people place great value in beauty, landscape and nature photography, has been a vehicle that over years over decades, has evolved and sharpened my ability to better sense, experience, and relate to visual aesthetic beauty that I can then share with others as photographs. David

August 22, 2016

This same thread subject has been discussed before at length. And probably on all photography boards. Much has to do with camera technology changes and much has to do with each person's technical skill and subject interest journey. Note photography is broader than just camera technologies as one must also include printing, display, and computer software technologies. There is of course a long list of photography types and each genre has its own specifics that won't necessarily apply to other types. For instance black and white nature and landscapes has had a very different technical journey over the decades than its sister, color landscapes. And likelwise the evolution of various studio oriented types of photography including portraiture over the decades has been closely linked to specific technology changes. In my case I have never been interested in any photography other than color outdoor landscapes and nature that of course has always been very popular so can only speak to that realm. I've made a living in hi tech while photography has just been a serious hobby on the side so am not a photography career person. I'm an old guy now so have experienced several decades of change as my first serious camera was before the 35mm SLR era in the early 1970s. Then in the 80s was the 35mm SLR revolution with interchangeable lenses that lasted a good 2 decades and was closely evolving with types of film, scanning, and printing. And since the new century digital overturned all that used to be. In some limited ways each of our own styles and skills as to how we approach taking actual images may not have changed much due to influences of technology, but overall technological changes have been dominant. One area that we can separate from these technology changes is the improvement in one's aesthetic sense. For this person, the most valuable thing I've gained over decades of photographing is where it has brought my aesthetic sense. In my own case I can strongly say that my ability to sense and capture the beautiful and the aesthetic has evolved gradually over the years and is much better now than decades ago as a young man when I thought I had it figured out. Walking about in the visual natural world I can usually find beauty much more rapidly than I ever could when younger. <be>

August 15, 2016

Much depends on the nature of the audience. An urban person that rarely if ever actually visits natural mountain locations will simply not be able to relate much to a typical scenic mountain landscape even though they immediately recognize the aesthetic beauty. On the other hand the visual minds of an audience of mountain enthusiasts immediately recognize with familiarity much in such image frames. But show that urban person an image of a typical city park with people in the foreground sitting on a park bench with tall buildings in the background and they may readily relate to what they are looking at. Most outdoor images are not meant to make an audience feel like they are actually sitting in front of whatever scene. But there are some standard technique images that will. Large highly detailed prints made with large format equipment viewed close with a highly detailed foreground and receding frame elements that lead the viewer out into the distance can provide that feel. That is what your example image looking up the stream surrounded trees helps with. It is a favorite strategy of large format view camera landscape photographers and I have many such images. This is just one example: <img src="http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/06-DD-12.jpg" alt="" width="1008" height="816" /> http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-DD-12.html Of course the above downsized for web image does not show the detail I am referring to but it does show the structure of such images. My intent here was to have the viewer feel like they were sitting on the turfy timberline grass and to help that my 4x5 view camera was set rather low at about 15 inches or so. Generally the more detail in images the larger the image the more an audience will feel an image gets closer to the actual visual experience.

Posted October 13, 2015 · October 13, 2015

ana >>>"I am working on my dissertation and need some authors that point that discussion: if photographs can be true or are an illusion." Much too broadly posed question. Typical of what a philosophy professor might give a student to write an essay on with an expectation students will usually pose much too narrow responses. A better question that one could actually write something with clarity about would be "Can elements of photographs be true and can elements of photographs be illusions?" Thus posing such a question broadly vaguely as a whole opens the door to all manner of abstractions, and term definitions, and interpretations. For instance a recent black and white news photo of the recent floods in South Carolina in some newspaper with a descriptive caption. One can say with certain truth that the image is a 2-dimensional black and white graphic of the South Carolina flood captured on a specific date and time during the day. If it shows houses and cars in the water one can with truth state the image elements show such. Most such news images have a list of elements which if a specific question is asked can be either stated as true or false. Other questions might be uncertain. For instance someone might ask if the scene was specific town. Without easily identifiable structures or signs that would be unknown. On the other hand someone might argue the image isn't true because we humans see in color 3-dimensionally and the photo was not. Indeed one can say no photograph accurately represents the human visual experience but that is not important because within narrower limits of the elements of human visual perception of what a photograph can represent may be readily specified and be stated as true and also be stated as valuable within those limits.

October 13, 2015

JB >>>"... I have to address the role of aesthetics/beauty in my work " First am not familiar with your "my work". JB>>>"... But I personally believe there is not a specific characteristic in a photograph that makes a photo aesthetic." Of course whole books have been written about aesthetic qualities of visual art so that makes no sense unless you are interpreting that in a narrow sense. If so need to be more specific. For instance there is much one can differentiate between various patterns, lines, geometries, colors, shades that are either more or less aesthetic. Thus if many judged a close-up image of a typical jewelry gem like a cut and polished ruby versus a dirt clod, the aesthetic choice would be overwhelming and much could be easily analyzed as to why. It is those elements of aesthetics that fill books on the subject.

September 10, 2015

Hello Barry, Yes what you are suggesting can provide a token amount of magnified detail that accomplishes that purpose. And in fact when I html coded my website in 2005 that is exactly what I did. On my homepage at

http:\\www.davidsenesac.com if one selects any images on the page's gallery below a sub-page appears with a downsized image at top and image description below. Just below the image is a line to view detailed crop that pops up a small window with a couple magnified small area crops. More recently at top right on my home page is this feature:

2015 Trip Chronicles <a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/2015_Trip-Chronicles-0.html" target="_top">Chronicles</a> that brings one to a contents page with lots of sub links below like:

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/spring_2015-2.html#mar7b">Antelope Valley 3/7>8</a>

to specific trips I did this year. On any of those sub pages, many of the featured images have links below like:

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/NW09624_09660-3x3sl.jpg">enlarged vertical slice view</a> So yes I've explored some other ways. David

September 10, 2015

Hi Steven, What you are suggesting would be trivial to do for someone like myself. However cropping out the borders is not the issue. The way I created the sections was to overlay a 30 pixel perimeter border atop each section. Thus that border replaced the image below. So if two adjacent sections were simply moved together, there would be 30+30=60 pixels of image information missing that would obviously disrupt any lines of detail awkwardly. Another way to describe this is that each section is 1000 by 800 pixels. But because of the borders there is only (1000-30-30) by (800-30-30) or 940 by 740 areas of image detail in each segment with the border areas missing. A diagonal line from one corner to the other would thus display with a discontinuity at the section border. A key aesthetic of large landscape images is their fine detail that with many column and row sections, faking with Photoshop missing border areas with say cloning would be ridiculous.

Now it is true that display schemes like that at the old gigapan image site that show a downsized image that one can zoom into at any point could indeed be copied section by section and then reassembled with stitching software. That is one reason I created the process.

David

September 7, 2015

Thankyou for your input Edward. Indeed as you noted per #3, my solution is to break an image into segments. And of course that does not mean one can somehow view a whole large image at full resolution at once that is impossible with a single screen. And indeed the aesthetics as a whole image are not improved. But rather the aesthetics and detail of segments I refer to as sections. As noted on my site, because I don't display each full section by use of a 30 pixel border on a 1000x800 pixel section, there is no way to copy all segments and stitch them together. That does however leave small areas of each section un-displayed that little matters for it purpose.

Thus an improvement but not an ideal solution which is not possible today. The ideal solution in the future would be a putting the audience in front of a truly large monitor with enough pixels or putting the audience in front of an actual print.

September 6, 2015

Interested in hearing opinions of others on the below sample web page I created with some minor html coding as a method for displaying large images. There are a few issues involved that influenced what I created.

<ul>

<li>Large images cannot be fully displayed on even large 4k UHD monitors.</li>

<li>Large images can take a long time to download.</li>

<li>Professional photographers do not want their large images copied illegally nor even large sections of those images.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Historic software theft prevention like watermarks reduce image aesthetic or if they are weak, are easily filtered out by professionals. </li>

<li>Large images that display with zoom-in software can be copied in sections and then stitched.</li>

<li>Web galleries that display large images with typical monitor pixel limits severely downsized images often lack enough detail to appreciate aesthetics and the resolution a print might provide.</li>

</ul>

The below link has details with 4 images of different sizes.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Enlarged/enlarged-all.html

David

March 4, 2014

Hello Didier, Well you seem to be wondering if the contrails add aesthetic or subject interest to your image versus the negative of having something man made in what is otherwise a natural scene. Aesthetically from a natural perspective, contrails almost never do. If all one is going to do with a photographic image is to display or use an image in some trivial way such as on the web or to make tiny prints, it doesn't matter one way or the other does it? Any answer would be subjective and would tend to vary depending on who in an audience was viewing the photo and the purpose of the presentation. An outdoor wilderness hiking enthusiast might view the contrails as a negative while an urban person that often flies jetliners in their career might not.

March 3, 2014

Most photographers will clone contrails out. Personally although I don't want them in my public images, I decided long ago to leave them in as well as all manner of other man made elements in my subjects. And state such on my Style & Philosophy sub-page. That can mean I won't get the shot and indeed such has sometimes been the situation. I simply wait till they drift away or change my frame. With contrails in certain regions, there are certain types of weather and times of day when they tend to make taking any image impossible. This image had a fine contrail upper mid right that I leave in the large print.

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-O-6.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-O-6.html</a>

For some types of photography manipulating images in post processing is no issue at all. For example product advertising where all manner of creative actions are expected. However the OP is more narrowly considering landscape and nature images. I learned Photoshop at a high level back in the 3.0 days in the mid 90s before this era of digital cameras. One of the processes I studied was totally replacing skies and can readily do so. I could see there would be a day when many photographers would embrace manipulating skies without limit and that has come to pass. As just a form of art,l I don't have ethical issue with any photographer that modifies their images in post processing removing or adding elements including skies as long as they are honest and up front about what they do at least in some small way with their public audience.

Unfortunately among serious photographers who sell images it is those who manipulate the most that often are the least likely to say anything at all. Thus there are not a few prominent photographers that are producing highly manipulated skies beyond just removing contrails and jacking up saturation. A favorite is brightening up clouds and skies at the center golden spot so it centers the balance in a frame. Also replacing any clouds that don't add to the overall frame aesthetic with blue sky. Although I don't have ethical issues with those who do manipulate their images in post processing adding or removing elements as long as they are honest with their public audience, it is also true I don't value their body of work as much as those that do not.

November 27, 2013

All my 4x5 transparencies are now in boxes for orienting slides in a vertical thickness orientation. Film sleeves from development labs put slides into clear plastic sleeves with the 5 inch end dimensions open, the 4 inch height dimension on the top side containing a flap, and the bottomside closed. The sleeve at the flap has 3 layers of plastic thus more thickness than the rest of the sleeve that has 2. I decideded to invert the sleeve in my storage boxes so the flap side is at the bottom of boxes. And I inserted all the transparencies the same way with the edge text at top. When several hundress slides are stored together so side by side, only the bottom of the sleeves at the flap will have any pressure since it is thickest there. If one squeezes the top end sides of such a stack, there will be a gradual bending inward.

My system has labeled archival index card dividers separating each field trip while allowing some loose space at the ends of each box. Thus slides tend to orient vertically without any stresses. There may be a natural tendency for some film to eventually bow even without storage stresses?

Also bought several hundred premium polyethylene sleeves which do not have a flap thus one installs slides by inserting them into the 4 inch end. Plan to put all my better slides into those sleeves after using pressurized air to rid them of dust.

November 24, 2013

Recently have reorganized all my 4x5 sheet film that is mostly Provia 100F and noticed some film is slightly bowed thus is not flat. The curved film is mainly due to storage issues I have since corrected. All my film is now stored inside individual plastic sleeves with the film plain in a vertical orientation inside archival boxes. Am wondering if I induce a curve in the opposite direction whether over a period of months such film will tend to straighten out? Bowed film will of course not make a difference if scanned on a drum but may make scanning on a flatbed less than ideal. Someone here have experience on flattening film?

David Senesac

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a>

November 6, 2013

From the perspective of individual photographers especially those whose work has a public audience, having a stated philosophy about how one approaches their work and presenting such to the public, can be an important element in how one wishes the public to view their body of work. Will be less meaningful for some types of photographic work than others. For instance far more important for a photo journalist or nature photographer than say a commercial advertising photographer or someone into shooting urban pets. For instance on my own web page, something I crafted several years ago that I probably need to update a wee bit:

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html</a>

Most serious photographers in this digital era, much less ordinary people holding compact digital cameras, don't even bother to create a minimal artist statement when presenting their work in public. In fact I argue many don't really want their audience to know what they are doing in post processing.

David Senesac <a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a>

October 28, 2013

John, so you bought one of those $3k 36mp Nikons! Am impressed. Good luck with the monorail. Would be interesting to see what kind of maximum depth of field you can get on closeups with the D800E versus my G10. Given the DSLR with greatest resolution versus the camera with maximum pixel density.

Yeah have been looking for a chance to visit YV too except don't have much incentive to bother as long as forecasts are sunny fair skies. Tomorrow would be the day as the current storm will still be lingering. Just can't bring myself to make long drives for any forest understory work in sunny contrasty conditions. Might not happen this fall.

Instead Saturday am likely to drive down to Point Lobos where I have worked closeups on Weston Beach 3 times this year already and have more to do. Nov 2 with the new moon on Nov 4 is ideal because the high tide is at 9:42am PDT at a major 5.6 feet then drops to a minus tide late afternoon. Tidal zone work needs to be done on a waning high tide when weather is providing clear sunlight because that provides best saturation on wet subjects with pleasant point source reflections against a blue sky that won't reflect versus clouds.

October 27, 2013

Thanks Frank, Guessing you are referring to getting exposures correct. Getting exposures right in dim conditions even using usual spot metering of elements like you noted in cloudy misty Scotland has always been the most difficult nut to crack for view camera users much like on our foggy redwood coast. With digital one can simply review captures instantly and adjust. Note conversely getting exposures correct with reasonably evenly illuminated outdoor landscapes in front lit sunny conditions has always been straightforward.

Something that has been helping me in dim conditions like I relate in my linked feature where I had to work at EV6 to EV8 in shadowed dim skylight to capture the creek images, is to in fact use my Canon G10 in addition to my spot meter to evaluate exposures because it is better at making sense of the overall frame. The compact digital in Av mode can be zoomed to the same frame of whatever LF lens I've mounted and then by setting it in my case to min aperture of f8, after a capture can evaluate the overall frame look, then check image capture information to see what auto shutter speed occurred that then is an EV level I can use at say f32 with whatever EV speed is calculated. A key is to know how one's digital camera tracks exposures with LF across the EV range.

October 27, 2013

Given the rise of digital photography and its considerable advantages, many former outdoor color landscape and especially nature photographers have moved to high end DSLRs or MF digital back systems. It is a subject that had been thoroughly discussed a decade ago and am wondering what others think about the situation today? It is a subject where one discusses pros and cons though those arguments change over time so the discussion now in 2013 will be a bit different than it was in 2003. On another board I was recently asked a question about the current availability of color sheet film and processing and related that thanks to resources across the world on the Internet one no longer needs to get by via local resources. That things at the moment are stable though most of us are keeping an anxious eye out as resources continue to diminish.

I added that most view camera users are older folks like this person that already have developed skills for and spent money on our systems that still have the capability of producing the highest level images that can be printed large. That while acknowledging that what is possible is not as broad as with best digital cameras e.g. instant feedback, narrow film latitude constraints, and gear weights etc. Thus can be content to not bother with the expense and technical effort of moving to a new system, cruising along just making images while ignoring the continual commotions and media focus on the digital fronts. If someone gave me an IQ180 or like highest end digital back MF system, yeah I would make the change now, however such equipment is and will remain way beyond the means of the majority of large format users.

My own body of work continues to be a strong statement that one does not have to give up much by being content to remain with traditional gear and I would hope it inspires others. Recent fall leaf trip feature on my website:

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/_a-z_evad/Backpacking/MonoFall/monofall_2013.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/_a-z_evad/Backpacking/MonoFall/monofall_2013.html</a>

Work during 2013 is on the bottom 6 gallery rows:

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/gallery_b.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/gallery_b.html</a>

January 13, 2013

A photographer can choose to shoot then post process mature subjects that have been shot by others any way they wish without having any ethical issues. I doubt if many serious photographers have ever spent much time considering such. However if what they are duplicating is work by a known photographer and plan to make the same work public, they are probably not going to be content merely copying as mere duplication tends to indicate a copy without skill or aesthetic vision. A lot more people can sense aesthetic value in exceptional prints than can explain why those images have that visual quality. When instructors leading students in the field to sites of strong subjects, many will be clueless as to where to best set their tripods down until an instructor explains the why on how to do so. As an old photographer with a lifetime of outdoor field work, other photographers will peruse websites like mine getting leads on productive places to visit. Fine I do the same or read guidebooks etc just like we all have always done. In this day of post processing Photoshop work, the status quo for many is to manipulate an image to maximum believability by saturating, increasing contrast, changing hues, removing awkward elements like out of focus branches, with some even adding elements like clouds. What does bother me is when someone locates then makes a similar image of a unique location I've shot and publicly presented in a reasonably natural way, but then post process manipulates that same image to something totally unnatural without even the tiniest public explanation. Such is more common for landscapes of colorful geology, especially those with reddish hues, where a manipulated presentation ends up some impossible gaudy red that those in the public without experience visiting such places will predictably blubber oohing and ahhing over.

David

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a>

September 16, 2012

My website homepage thumbnail gallery of scenic landscapes links to sub pages with 900 pixel wide larger images with technical information and several paragraphs of story and information below.

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a>

I also readily embed images within html text on feature stories like these two I created this year:

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/Redwoods_2012/redwoods_2012.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/Redwoods_2012/redwoods_2012.html</a>

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/MinnowCr/minnowcr_0.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/MinnowCr/minnowcr_0.html</a>

When I see others landscape image work on the web or prints in galleries and there is little or no information provided, it makes their images less interesting. When Galen Rowell came out with Mountain Light, which was a book format very much against the status quo of photography picture books of that day, it proved in some types of work the value of making images more interesting by including modest amounts of complementary information. That does not mean such is always a plus but that if crafted well can. I also think there is place for the same kind of complementing information for nature and scenics in museum type exhibitions.

January 14, 2010

Arthur >>>"...I wonder if the computer and Internet are simply taking the place of the magazine for many..."

Indeed most Internet users start out at that magazine flipping level. A far higher percentage of people have little compact digital cameras today than people ever did with film cameras, use them more often, and use them for a greater range of purposes. Cheap, convenient, and mated with computers, much more flexible and powerful. Web forums encourage participation and members look for ways to join threads and discussions. And doing so since higher bandwidth has made image posting more practical, is now allowing vastly more people than ever to publically display their photos. It is only natural for posters to want to present pleasing acceptable images so such is a behaviorial force bearing on each individual's improvement over time. Still there will be many that will ever remain contently at the lowest aesthetic levels because it doesn't matter to them and they have little ambition to make any effort that might improve beyond point and shoot mug shot snapshots. One threshold is recognized when a person first begins to post process images with any of the new graphic editing tools. So it is like a significant group of the masses has recently risen to a modestly higher level of appreciation of art aesthetics. Regardless we can expect them to continue for years to have trouble differentiating what the art savvy would separate as merely good from outstanding.

The main noticeable improvements are among the many that have become excited by the new gear and media and make some effort to improve. They quickly find within communities of Internet boards that the scope of what is now possible is considerable and not particularly difficult to attain. They see, read, participate, and understand what those more experienced may be saying. They post an image they don't see flaws in and other surprise them with critiques they had not thought about so they learn. An examples of something in imagery that takes experience, often years to develop well, is a good sense of geometry in images, the lines that guide an audience's eye to see to a frame's subject and balance the overall frame. Or how greatly some images can be improved by relatively small cropping changes like removing bright distracting elements at a frame edge

January 13, 2010

Dan >>>"I see such full and rich colors in the morning and evening sky and it is captured so well by many Photo.net users..."

Actually the status quo has become jack up saturation and contrast from whatever natural colors were experienced to as high as might be believable by others. It is refreshing to occasionally see color images rendered naturally. Most manipulated not surprisingly are sunsets, sunrises, dawn, and dusk skies. In fact because many of those manipulating images have modest experience as to what is and what is not natural, possible and not. The results of many are well beyond natural despite the usual stroking of others with the same style.

David Senesac <a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a>

January 13, 2010

Instead of answering your question, I'll put in terse perspective people and imagery and the reality then becomes obvious.

Lets go back a decade to the time before the Internet had bandwidth to display imagery and before quality digital cameras.

What percentage of the masses viewed photographic prints at actual galleries or museums? Probably tiny.

What percentage of the masses viewed photographic prints in public places (buisinesses, restaurants, park visitor centers, public buildings, etc) where they actually tried to look at a print for more than a few seconds? Probably small.

What percentage of the masses viewed photographic prints at art fairs? Probably moderately small.

What percentage of the masses viewed pictures in quality coffee table type art books. Fairly good numbers at least occasionally.

What percentage of the masses viewed pictures in magazines. A large percentage.

What percentage of the masses viewed snapshots in photo albums of themselves, relatives, and friends. Everybody but aesthetic interest in such images is of course usually of minor importance. (Mug shot of Betty and Bob standing in front of Old Faithful.)

So in the past the way the public evaluated pictures was primarily based on their looking at little pictures in magazines and published books, or their own personal acquaintances.

Now lets move forware to the present decade of high bandwidth Internet, quality digital cameras, inkjet printers, and computers in everyones hands.

Most of the above still holds. But what is significant is very large numbers of people are for the first time evaluating imagery on the web via their monitors. And interacting on forums with others like themselves as well as those more experienced in art aesthetics and some of that is rubbing off. Especially for the truly unprecidented numbers of new photographers that are interested in improving their understanding of what quality images ought to look like. And with inkjets more people than ever before are printing out their own work and thus have a vested interest in creating something they like.

Despite these new trends, the masses generally have rather modest abilities to separate merely good pictures from those the art experienced would value as outstanding. One way that comes out is in all the flawed imagery that is posted on various image forum sites. Sure most posted images are received positively but that has far more to do with stroking by the mutual admiration societies that infrequently have the actually gall to be critical. Those sites that cater to more serious new young digital photographers are usually of a significantly better quality, however generally the aesthetic sense of ordinary people is modest.

David Senesac

September 7, 2009

Would suggest when arriving going to a bookstore and buying a good current road map of Monterey County that shows public lands. Much like many other coastal areas, public access is limited in many areas and some accessible lands are not so obviously signed nor in guidebooks. Nor are some of the backroads so obvious that may lead to entry points only locals know about. By doing one's homework of where one might go, one may come up with a plan of exploring the coast in an efficient way. Some of that information is of course right online if one has the skill to search for it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by david_senesac