cd
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by cd
-
-
check strobist.com they'll give you the dave hill technique with an ad nauseum discussion about it.
-
Very broad question, are you doing boudoir type shots for locals (commissioned work) or fine art (selling non commissioned work to any and all).
Also, if you are in the US realize that if you live in a small community you'll probably never be hired for any other kind of job, and may become a persona non grata there.
-
Fuji for under 1000$, BTW.. what is a non distorted wide angle, those usually involve panoramic formats?
-
one light either side of the camera, higher than subject (pointing down). You should probably soften the lights with some frosting material (shower curtains?).
-
Les,
you will find a speaker icon top right on the menu bar, click it.
Dont' be dissing techno !
C.
-
Bogen/Manfrotto and others have everything you need, if you want to go frugal use a telescoping curtain rod from Walmart with some stands and the 49 cent clamps in the hardware dept.
-
he's seen your work, now he wants to meet the personality and see if there is chemistry. A lot of photographers no longer carry around hard copy portfolios. If you really want to show him something , prepare a slideshow on your laptop, or burn a CD for him to see on his own comp.
C.
-
The canon will set you back almost 8K, you could buy a digital Mamiya 645 for just a bit more, and the differences are noticeable. While we are on the subject for only 20K more you could go up to 39 Mp. This is an interesting read: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm
-
-
final image resolution should be 240-300 dpi (in PS) before sending to print, with no Scaling to Media. Do all your work in PS. I create one file per output size, because the parameters that might apply to 17X22 might not be same I'd apply to an 8X10 (ex: Sharpening).
Good Luck.
C.
-
Ok Josh I understand. Too bad , cuz it was getting interesting as it evolved into a debate about art vs society. In case I didn't mention it, you are a valuable addition around here, this site is better for having you. - C.
-
Ok good feedback all, and I think that as long as we remain respectful this can be a healthy debate.
I'd like to re-state one point in particular that I have repeated over and over again, and it remains fundamental to the issue. I'm absolutely in support of good critiques (both pos & neg). Please feel free to tell me my pictures suck, and if I could impose upon you, tell me why, it would go a long way to supporting the basic tennet of this site. LEARNING. That is the true intent of a critique to inform and encourage, not dissuade. You can someone their images are too dark or to light without attacking them personally. When you go after a person directly then it becomes vile, and dear readers, that should not be permitted... We should (need to) encourage true critiquing wether it be accurate or not, positive or not but should stop vile attacks in their tracks.
to Ellis:
The stats don't bear you out on the popularity of NET. It peaked in 2006 and is now on the decline (5 yr graph), while digital camera sales continue to soar, and more importantly books, seminars and other teaching tools on photography explode, so where is photo.net in all this as a teaching tool? They've allowed a small segment of the population to have their way, and have made this site less interesting. On the subject of bullying .... not to bring it back to the schoolyard, but really who took the first swing ? Have I no right to post, without personal comdemnation ? When did I bully Peter? (who BTW has a site called portraitsbypeter.com , with not a single pic of a human being, this is factual ,not an attack.)
BTW Ellis: Erotica is considered an art form, for legitimacy check out Picasso's erotica... http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/28/0228hot.html , sadly Americans weren't allowed to see the work (telling isn't it?)
to Jonathan.
You have a twisted view of liberty. Your freedom of expression should not crush mine. There are limits to your freedom , when they impugn on others' freedoms. Yes there are limits to freedom when they attempt to limit or crush the same rights in others. Suggested reading, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd
to John.
You are an ellegant word smith, if I only had your skill, I might move men to action, if not mountains.
to Mike.
Mike you have eloquently proven my point, you don't feel welcome here (sadly, you are not the first to say this) unless you post pictures of puppies, sunsets, or grazing cattle. I rest my case.
to somone else.
She has five fingers (tilt your head to port sailor). Or it could be a case of an M.C. Escher illusion, further research is required. Thank You.
Not to bring about any conspiracy theories but, I do believe there is an actual organized agenda at play here, where several members (usually with fundamentalist religious roots) have taken it upon themselves (and working in unity with others) to dissuade legitimate members of this community from posting pictures that do not fit into their moral zone (creationism anyone?). Their tactics range from bombarding the admins with complaints about too much nudity, to posting comments that are dissuasive to the poster. Feel free to read about the fight a generation ago ...
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3467/Mapplethorpe-Obscenity-Trial-1990-Obscenity-or-Art.html
C.
-
David, Believe me, I know to expect it, I simply want it noted as inappropriate. A message needs to be sent out that those sort of comments won't be tolerated. As Josh so eloquently pointed out, he gets a volume of mail complaining about too many nudes.... constantly.
These are people who are trying to shutdown an art form I see as valuable beautiful and eloquent, to shame those who practice it into complying with their sense of both decency and aesthetic.
You may not see it, but after going thru it 20 years ago I've come to recognise the signs, these are people for whom nudity no matter how beautiful or eloquent simply has no place in art or daily life. There has to be a counterpoint to that.
I'd would simply like a demonstrable intolerance towards personal attacks. They can tell me that I have no technique, they can tell me I couldn't shoot my way out of a camera obscura, but when you go towards personal attacks on the very person, to shame or humiliate them out of pursuing their chosen art form..." then that's just too much. I'm taking a stand.
-
Josh,
No one wants to see PHOTO.NET become another playboy.com or porn site (notice the distinction?), there are too many of those already, But I would like to see the rights of photographers posting edgier material defended more rigorously. Material in passing that legitimate galleries have no trouble with. Photo.net is part of a larger community, the ART community, and as such has an obligation to defend the works of that community (1st Ammendment anyone?).
As you pointed out, name-calling serves no one. Personal attacks aimed towards the photographer or the model do a diservice to the community that is photo.net, and do nothing to advance the art of photography as a whole.
I would defend their right to post all the cat, dog, flower, and grazing cattle shots that their hearts desire, and be critiqued on such, why are they allowed to impugn my rights to post my images, without being attacked personally.
You and I both know that several (many?) photographers who commonly post edgier material have been vilified in the comments to the point that they have either completely abandoned NET or cut back severely on their postings. I believe that the long term stats bear this out.There is simply less of interest to look at on photo.net, this translates to less traffic, and less revenue for the site, and could eventually lead to it's collapse (unless Amazon is waiting in the wings). It has happened before. I would like to keep photo.net healthy.
-
ROFLMAO ! David, You are equating beating a woman to a pulp with what I posted ?
-
Patrick do the 5 yr comparison on sig & net.
-
David read my post, I would happily defend his right to call the image utter garbage, but he doesn't go to critiquing the image now does he ?
-
Josh,
I lay it squarely at the foot photo.net for not defending the right of a photographer to post his images without derision.
I take issue with the fact that you were (negatively) touched by my comment equating small town people with small mindedness and felt I should be reprimanded, when that simple fact has already been established demographically (census & voting records), but seem to take no real exception to a paying photographer doing some very take bondage pictures on your site being called
<b>"....pretty hostile towards women. Are you that threatened by female sexuality that they have to be restrained?
This figure is almost corpse-like. Disturbing, rather than thought-provoking. I feel sorry for you "</b>
<b> Insert Withdrawn comment full of derision for the model. </b>
This somehow elicited an almost apologetic response from you, I find that interesting.
This site is here to share and educate and generate revenue for it's owner. It is clear that through moderation of the postings (among other things) it has failed uphold and hold sacred the tenant that Art must not be stifled (take heart photosig is in the same boat) and that viewership is down, way down, because deep down inside we all know that nobody goes back over and over for pictures of puppies or grazing cattle, and even fewer will pay for the priviledge.
Pictures that are edgy, (and mine are tame by comparison), bring people back. PHOTO.NET's lack of a vigor in defending those types of images has made many a photographer leave. Don't believe me ? Go to www.alexa.com remove the names of whatever sites appear in the website stats boxes ,and plug in photosig.com and photo.net, interesting huh ? Now in the third box type in flickr.com, impressed yet ?
Finally having lived thru the moral majority and the Robert Mapplethorpe / Obscenity trial of the 90's I know what the holier than thou crowd is capable of.
Let's ask Phillip what he thinks.
PS: I'd happily take a refund.
-Carlos
-
I'm starting to see why this site is declining rapidly... too bad I paid for 3 years.
-
point taken.
-
My issue with the comments are not about what is said about the image itself, but what was intimated about both the photographer and the model, my regard for women, or my model's self-respect. Those comments crossed the line into personal attacks, and as I understand the terms of this site, are not in keeping with the goals of this site. Let's end it here.
...Postings that attack another person's motivation, intelligence, or character are bad because they degrade the quality of the discussion and discourage thoughtful comments by others. For some reason, human beings often are confident that they can discern the hidden motivation for another person doing or saying something. Trained psychiatrists and psychologists, however, do very poorly at this task, so what hope is there for a lay person?
-
Frank are you an admin ?
-
Make that 2 comments. Folks if you don't like an image , please feel free not to comment on it. A little respect for the rights of others to pursue their happiness (between consenting adults), even if you don't seem to understand it, would go a long way to making this world a better place.
-
I'd like to have a comment made by a poor lonely old man removed from one of my
images.
http://www.photo.net/photo/6900169
Thx
-Carlos
Raw versus Jpeg
in Nikon
Posted