amul

A condenser head doesn't interact with the negatives at all. The effects you'll see on the prints are a bit different from a diffuser, but not so much that I'd want to keep both in my darkroom.

And what differences do exist between them, can pretty much be sorted out with contrast filters.

I'm taking an advanced techniques class, and one of our assignments is

to try experimenting with infrared black & white film. Obviously, this

needs a filter.

The problem I'm having is that my preference is to photograph models

using my 55mm macro lens, which has a different diameter for filters

(62mm) than all my other lenses (52mm).

Can someone show me what macro infrared photos of people looks like?

What about tattoos?

(PS the reason I used erotica in the subject line is because, without

knowing what sort of effects I'll be getting, this seemed like a good

starting point for the project)

Portable or for a fixed location?

Right now, I'm using three clamp lights ($8 each) and two 1000watt bulbs and one 500 watt bulb (roughly $12 each), with reflectors of various shapes and sizes.

Check my portfolio, and keep in mind I haven't begun my formal study of lighting yet, to see for yourself how well it works.

Interested in trying out painting with light? The only studio equipment you need is a flashlight and a tripod.

As I was exploring the idea of creating a form page that generated an

Aesthetics rating based on a series of more complicated questions, it

struck me just how diverse and massive such a task would be. I

realized I simply didn't have the knowledge of formal critique methods

to accomplish it, and that even if I did, the resulting program would

be rather massive.

And then I thought to myself, "What the hell, I've got the web space."

So here's my idea. Using the constraints of the existing system (scale

of 1 to 7) and starting with a base question also based on existing

classification, let's try to hammer out a concise, overly complicated

system to rate stuff. Maybe it'll get enough usage that the photonet

elves will steal it some day.

It seems rather obvious to me that the first question one must ask in

order to judge a photo is, what category of photography is it? We'll

use photo.net's answers for now:

Architecture

Digital Alterations

Events - Concerts

Events - Other

Events - Sports

Fine Art

Nature

News/Journalism

Other

Pets

Portraits

Street

Uncategorized

Underwater

The next question that must be asked is: Black & White or Color?

From this point, I think we stop branching and arrive at a list of

questions that gauge the dimensions of Aesthetics for a particular

photo. You'd answer the questions, hit Submit, and it would yield a

number within photonet's scale.

Please restrict your comments to what you think of this idea. I will

be posting separate threads regarding the actual form of the quiz. For

now, please limit yourself to:

a) is this a good idea? Why (not?)

b) is the categorization step complete without being overly complex?

Appreciation for your input is given in advance.

Hanna,

Sorry, it took so long to respond. I'll be sending you a copy of this post via email to make sure you get it. It took me forever because I was trying to find a web comic that illustrated my point. In this comic (an old Sluggy Freelance), a graphic artist was required to paint on canvas. He makes a single stroke of his brush, and then asks his friend to take the canvas down to a copy shop and make a backup.

It's funnier in the comic form, I guess.

The point I'm trying to make is that digital photography, even when combined with image manipulation is so cheap, and discipline is only learned at a cost. I love playing around with Photoshop as much as the next person, and until I started working in a darkroom, had no bias against it at all.

I certainly did not mean to separate digital wizardry from manual artistry, at least not when the the opposing team is Family Photography (and, as I believe I said, before, this is not to say that there are not skilled Family Photographers, nor that it cannot be elevated into an art form). I own, and hang prominently in my home the works of Dave McKean, whose work is only achievable through image manipulation. Rather, I meant to lump together all those who value too little the incredible time and effort it takes some of us to create something we consider worthy of examination by our peers.

On the other hand, can it be denied that digital images come cheaper than manually processed film, and hand-created prints? You can learn the effects of every option in Photoshop without ever once learning why it does that, what painstaking processes that were once done by hand can now be done with the touch of a button. If you make a mistake, you simply Undo. In the darkroom, if you make a mistake, you lose hours of your time, and curse yourself for a fool while you repeat each step that led to that point. Discipline is achieved not merely through effort, but through loss, and as a very broad generalization I think it is fair to say that most digital manipulaters create without learning and progress without gaining discipline. And discipline is something that, I feel, distinguishes an artist from a dabbler.

So forgive me if I led you, or anyone else to believe that my bias against digital imagery included those who take the time to learn what it is they are doing. My comments were not meant to include anyone who learned what the Rule of Thirds was, or why opening an aperture requires moving to a lower number, before calling themselves a photographer. No, my comments were meant to include anyone whose camera came in a plastic box you had to open with scissors.

And if you will not forgive, then you have my permission to dismiss me as one of the young recruits of an outdated Old School. If I had my way, every applicant to this community (or any other I am a member of) would have to take a written exam first. Of course, if I had my way, the internet would be inaccessible to those who cannot tell the difference between back- and forward-slash. It is well known amongst my friends that I choose my biases quickly, and adhere to them vocally. The question they can never answer is whether I do so in the hopes that someone will try to convince me I'm wrong, or if I merely love to argue.

I know the the K1000 has a dedicated following because of it's place in the evolution of the Pentax catalog. It is a well built, well-featured purely maual camera that doesn't even have a slot for batteries. It also has a superior history of reliability and durability.

The lens also contribute to this slightly, in that the Olympus and Pentax lenses are generally thought to be superior in terms of performance, although this is comparing apples to oranges.

Yance,

Just out of curiosity, did you look at my portfolio before making this comment?

I'd like to hear how well you think I've done so far.

I think this is a tough issue you're talking about, Ray.

Certainly I can understand your desire to protect your daughter from what you clearly view as inappropriate. It's not really my place to suggest this to you, as I have no role in the raising of your child, but in the spirit of community that is a foundation for photo.net, let me ask you this:

She is going to learn eventually that some men want to objectify women. How long do you want to protect her from that knowledge? Will you wait until the confusion of puberty is upon her? Isn't it better for her to learn about this "evil," and your views on it by carefully exposing it to her, and giving her intelligent reasons for why you believe what you believe? Isn't it better to do this before the confusion of budding sexuality complicates this matter further? Wouldn't you rather spend a few minutes discussing with her exactly what you don't like about that photo, and then a few more showing her nudity you find acceptable and explaining why you like that, when the other option risks her becoming ashamed of her body and sexuality in the years ahead because "daddy fears a woman's body?"

Seven year olds are precocious. And they learn lessons we don't always want them to. And it's my belief that carefully regulated exposure to the "evils of the world" yields healthier, longer lasting results than kneejerk shielding.

You want her to stay innocent and protected for as long as you can manage, I understand that. Maybe 7 is too young for these lessons. But the world is what it is, and children are impressionable. I encourage you to prepare your child rather than protect her.

PS -- I am not a parent, merely a closely involved god-parent. I understand that there is a significant difference in the beliefs of such. If you wish to discuss my ideas, I encourage you to email me about them, or continue this conversation here.

You'll need fast film.

If this is your first time, remember to try playing with different shutter speeds. You'll get a lot of crap, but learn loads.

Thanks, Mellisa, but....

<P><I>1. Rate recent photos only in a given category or group of categories?

<BR>I dunno. I don�t think it can be done. </I>

<BR>I can't even figure out how to rate things except through the Rate Recent Photos option. Like I said, I must be daft.

<P><I>2. View all the photos... since the last time...

<BR>You can only go about it the long way.</I>

<BR>But this will only show me ALL their photos, or all the rated ones. I want to know how to sort someone's galleries by date.

<P><I>3.effectively use the unified forum view? </I>

<BR>Thanks!!

<P><I>Why can't I... (or, Am I the only one who wants to....)

<BR>1. restrict my Rate Recent Photos to show only...

<BR>I don�t think this can be done. For me, it�s not even something I�d be interested in doing.

<BR>2. search Galleries by equipment used? </I>

<BR>So the question becomes, am I the only one who'd want to?

<P><I>>3. draw any other lines that get argued about constantly and view only my sub-peers efforts?

<BR>>Sorry, I�m not sure what you mean. If you mean can you ignore the same old run-down, worn-out, threads, the answer is, unfortunately, no. </I>

<BR>I'm basically asking if we could expand the personalization of the Rate Recent Photos system.

<P><I>4. receive email notification that someone has responded to a post I have also commented on?

<BR>You can�.At the top of the far right column, there is a �Notify Me of Responses� button.</I>

<BR>I never get them even when I hit that button.

A while ago someone pointed out a very useful website that clearly

defines the differences between the K, M, A, FA, etc lens types and

how they relate to the P/K-AR, etc listings. My google-fu seems poor,

however, and I cannot locate it.

Can someone please point me to useful websites, or explain this stuff

to me again?

Where are you located?

<BR>I know of a <a href="www.kameraworks.com">reputable repair place in Pittsburgh,</A> but the cost of shipping might be prohibitive. Plus, do you really want to trust your camera to the shipping gorillas?

Among many items I inherited is this <a href="http://www.toastology.

com/projects/cameras/">queer looking camera support.</A> It's a

shoulder mounted camera support, with a trigger grip that connects to

some kind of cable release.

<P>The (missing) cable release screws into the hole in the middle

image. My original plan was to just find a cable release which would

fit, but the hole is too small. Then I purchased a 1/8" dowel rod

(which fits into it almost perfectly) and tried to cut a small chunk

off, and replace the thumb pad of a cable release with it, only the

sizes involved are too small and the wood keeps breaking.

<P>Now I'm wondering if there's any advantage to using this thing. A

bit of sour grapes, I guess. Has anyone seen anything like this

before? How much stability does it provide?

<P>For instance, if I can usually produce a picture with no shake at

1/60th, using this shoulder mount, what can I go down to? 1/30th,

1/15th?

<a href="http://www.google.com/custom?q=liquid+light&sa=Google&cof=L%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo.net%2Fgraphics%2Fanimated_photonet_logo.gif%3BAH%3Aleft%3BAWFID%3A1a028422fd3461a7%3B&domains=photo.net&sitesearch=photo.net">Many similiar questions</A> have been asked already.

<P>I'd offer you answers, but I'm still looking up info on the stuff myself.

Here's my thing about the various forms of abuse the Critique system that everyone always seems to comment on.

People will abuse any system. People will also always argue that any system gets abused.

To my mind, it is not nearly so frustrating to see these problems as it is to see endless, bickering discussions about what to do about them all. This, of course, harkens back to my days as a wee sapling, sitting under the dining room table sucking my thumb and listening to the parents argue about the best way to teach religion to their kids.

Open forums for questions about how to use the website are one thing. Letting people comment on other people's suggestions for improvement are another. I say, to hell with fixing the ratings system again, this time let's muck with people's ability to provide feedback about what to do about it!

Can't you all just make little online polls that say "I think we should do X, do you agree or disagree?" and let the PNelves know about the poll. Then they can decide for themselves what to do about it. Deprived of a say in the matter, we can merely utter "Double Plus Ungood!" or some other such nonsense.

I mean, look at America. Clearly, democracy fails.

*backs cautiously away while hoping no one calls Homeland Security*

I seem to be daft. Are there clear instructions on any of these

questions already posted somewhere?

How do I...

1. Rate recent photos only in a given category or group of categories?

2. View all the photos uploaded by Someone I Marked As Interesting

since the last time I looked at their gallery (not just the last

three)?

(2-ii. Can we please call it something better than Marked As

Interesting?)

3. Effectively use the unified forum view?

4. get more people to rate my photos (this should be in the FAQ)?

5. Sign up to help with stuff?

Why can't I...

(or, Am I the only one who wants to....)

1. restrict my Rate Recent Photos to show only Unmanipulated, Slightly

Manipulated or Majorly Manipulated images? How about Manipulated by

Hand or Digitally Altered?

2. search Galleries by equipment used?

3. draw any other lines that get argued about constantly and view only

my sub-peers efforts?

4. receive email notification that someone has responded to a post I

have also commented on?

Thanks, and sorry for the bother.

I'm looking through your portfolio because of this post. What I don't understand is why you're a paid member on photo.net, and why you've submitted the work that you have.

I am an artistic photographer, the work I submit for criticism here is made using film, lighting equipment, and my own darkroom. I scan my prints in and use Photoshop only to restore the scan to as close as I can to what the print looks like. So while I have a bias against Digital Camera users, and posters of Family Pictures (especially when they ask for criticism), I try to hold that bias down because they are on photo.net looking to improve, and understand that it is only their medium that is different, not their desires regarding this community.

But you post photos of empty booths and peacocks that aren't fully in frame. You ask for criticism on pictures with obvious problems. I can only hope that these are you best works, that you do not think simply because digital photos are so cheap to produce that they are equally cheap to display online, especially on sites like this.

You are putting time and effort into creating and publishing these photos, albeit in an online format. You're a paid member. You obviously feel that whatever you are gaining from this community is worth your support. What are you getting?

I publish my prints in the hopes that someone will give me advice on how to improve, how to use the equipment I own to it's fullest advantage. You, on the other hand, seem content to use your digital SLR's autofocus and built-in flash. I put approximately six hours worth of effort, not to mention the money, into each photo I have uploaded to this site (and I freely admit that many would see that as time wasted). The work you display is not merely amateurish (like mine) but often times out of focus, poorly composed, badly light, or generally failing to show what you must have wanted to capture. Yet clearly you have CHOSEN these photos to display to this community of photographers as the height of your talent, because you have undoubtedly taken more, given how cheaply you can produce photographs. Again, I am forced to wonder WHY?

I would be sympathetic to your complaints against this individual if I could grasp, even vaguely, why you spend your time and money, and photo.net's bandwidth, server space, and processing power on being a part of this community. You post only to the Gallery, and you can view that for free. Granted, you've only been a member since the 8th, so it's too soon to see if you're learning anything, but I'm sure you can look at the pictures you've posted and see how to improve them without the need of outside critique.

There are many people here who would view this as an attack against the Family Photographer, who has so many incarnations here. While it is true that I dislike their presence in this community, at least most of them are trying to improve the quality of their work. If I sound hostile, it's because I am, but I'm really trying my hardest not to be. If you choose to respond to this, please don't defend, but EXPLAIN to me why you (and hundreds like you) not only not only choose to upload inferior examples of your work, but also become indignant when we call it such?

I apologize for the harsh tone of this comment, but really. If you're going to post crap, expect it back in return. If you're going to engage in a flamewar, expect to be flamed.

A semi-professional model friend of mine was good enough to let me

learn from working with her last week. I'm a student and hobbyist

photographer, with no plans to ever market my work. At the same time,

I am interested enough in the hobby that I don't doubt some day I'll

be paying professional models. Let's call me an amateur art

photographer?

Anyway, while working with her, I realized that I haven't been

photographing *models*, I've been photographing my friends, if you can

see the difference. The works I've been creating speak of the

relationship I have with my subject matter. While I always realized

there was a difference between working with professionals and

amateurs, it had never struck me so profoundly.

So here's my question. In the upcoming weeks, I'm supposed to be

photographing an acquaintance of mine, partially as an excuse for us

to spend more time together and hopefully become friends, and

partially because I know she's experienced some emotions that I've

never felt and want to try to capture on film (Specifically, the pains

unique to a woman whose beloved is terminally ill). It was always sort

of touchy about how we'd expose this side of her to my camera. Now I'm

thinking that I'd also like to incorporate my recent lessons in the

differences between professional and amateur models. But I'm not quite

sure how to pull all of this together, and am looking for any advice,

or stories about similar experiences.

Please don't tell me that I'm biting off more than I can chew. The

point of artistic endeavor is to test your limits.

I've read several posts discussing a spray-on emulsion, but have only

found specific references to LiquidLight. Could I get a full list of

all the emulsion-in-a-bottles out there for B&W ?

Also, since developer stains cloth yellow, and fix also damages cloth

(bleaches, I think), how can I develop prints on cloth?

Has anybody tried doing this on PVC or vinyl?

Does anyone know of a decent shop where I can get all these medium

format cameras I just inherited cleaned, oiled and tested, in the

Pittsburgh area?

If not, do you know of a place in either Chicago or Philadelphia that

could clean/repair 6 medium format cameras the same day I bring them

in?

It depends on how comfortable she is, what the setting will be.

Alchol will defintely be useful.

Be SURE, be absolutely sure, DO NOT FORGET to constantly tell her how well she is doing. This will yield better poses than studying up will.

Poses should involve keeping her body taut. Keep her stretched out, leaning to sides, twisting her body, etc. This keeps the body looking lean.

I really recommend checking out the Art/Drawing section for books on classic poses. Otherwise, right here is your best bet. We have a number of photographers who specialize in sensual photography.

The strobes seem like a bad idea to me. I don't remember how old my god children were when I took their photos (no examples shown for lack of permission), but they were premature and still in the hospital, and I was told No Flash Allowed. Diffused might work, but I'd test before starting.

The key difference between 1-week olds and other babies is size, of course. Get the parents into it, holding the child, and be sure to do some macro shots of their tiny little hands and feet, with something in the shot to give it a ratio. Like the parents' hands. The shot hass been done a thousand times, I'm sure, but the parents and family will love it.

"Amateur autopsies?"

*shudder*

Although I haven't tried it myself, I've read in a variety of sources that you can simply build a sink using wood and marine varnish, although you need to re-apply the marine varnish every six months to a year.

Essentially, you need countertop or long hunk of plywood, strong enough to support the weight of everything. Then mount a 2x4 across the front to create a 4" deep front lip, and either another 2x4 in back or some kind of backsplash board. Coat the entire thing in three coats of marine varnish, and again, add a fresh coat every six-12 months.

It seems to me that, from those instructions, you could do equally well buying a used kitchen countertop with a sink built in, and then add the varnish-coated 2x4s, and seal edges with some kind of joint compound (I'm planning on using my old tube of aquariam tank glue).

But like I said, I have yet to TRY any of this yet. I'm still tearing out the existing woodwork.