tea man

Well... its technically not a hand....<div></div>

The dunes of Tuoro are always cool and the lively street sceand in provincetown can provide photo fodder. Then there are the photos that ends up on postcards like the Tuoro cottages, lighthouses and sailboats.

Unfortunately, such struggles are more common than most of us are aware off and are a fact of many of our lives. A good effort at photodocumentary can often help others understand the pain suffered by others. I hope she feel better.

Mr. Speedy...<div></div>

This rating is like democracy. It sucks and pisses some people off, but its the best system we have to regulate the idea.

what exactly was a "song"? I'm in the market too.

Just for the record, my Dieppe image is cropped from a larger image to remove corner vignetting. So it did have "clutter" removed. I like to think of it as focusing the image; like using depth-of-field to blur out the background.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a trick but it does represent an unrealistic view as far as what a normal person would perceive in real life. I guess that that would be the difference between exaggerating/misleading by omission and out-right lying.

"I think you should get rid of all those anonymous raters and make them leave there name when rating"

 

Agreed. People should be fully accountable for their behaviour. We'll also have a second rating system to vote people off photo.net. After 3 unhappy customers, you get kicked off the island and your IP site gets blacklisted. Sorry. It's been a bad morning.

This is starting to sound like a right-to-issue. When does a photograph come to life? After darkroom or after the click of the shutter?

 

Photographs are created via 2 routes. Intent and luck. The master technician A. Adams worked the zones during exposure and in the darkroom to achieve his images. I guess its not inconcievable that he happened to be up on Half Dome in winter with a 25 pound 4x5 camera and accidentally hit the shutter button with is elbow.

I've never been a big user of the camera flash and I've toyed with

my Metz on the rare occasion. I've always had questions..

 

1) If the flash is kept unused, I'm told that its output diminishes

if you don't maintain it by firing it ocassionally. Is this true?

How?

 

2) I'm told that you can damage the flash unit if you cover it with

while its being fired. Can you? Why?

Check the price of the 50mm f/1 at some point.

 

The cost of high quality lenses are often a study in diminishing returns. For example, expensive EOS L lenses perform better because they are made better with better materials. They also cost more because less people buy them. Are they worth that much more money? That would depend on who you ask.

 

On a practical side, the 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f1/1.4 are prime lenses built with tried and true formulas. Unless you compare them at the extremes of the apeture range, the only you'll probably detect with the naked eye is the slight increase in glass speed.

Q.G. your point is well taken. However, my reference to "correctness of representation" was confined to the context of the original image in question; where barrel distortion was clearly evident. My suggestion to artificially remove this distortion was to imply that the barrel distortion would not be seen by eye, hence a more acceptable representation.

One thing about the old press cameras is that you'll have to make sure that the lens has the correct focusing cam for the rangefinder. This is the mechanism that allows the rangefinder to be focused correctly with the camera. On the cameras you see on ebay, I would not automatically assume that the rangefinder focusing would work with the lens its sold with.

 

The problem with these older hand-me-down cameras is that they might not work properly. Sure you might find gems but assume that you'll have to send these old cameras it thru a CLA.

One of the reasons for lens misalignments in TLR's, hence blurry photos, is a front standard that is not parallel with the body. If the camera was dropped and the standard is out of whack, that may be a tough fix.

I started with a pacemaker but given what I know now, I would probably save some money and started with a toyo CF field camera. Newer technology, much lighter. If I had to sell it, I could probably get about the same price for the toyo. Personally, I would definately start with a field camera over a studio type camera. It has less movements but more versatile I think.

"If you think the second, manipulation may actually add value to the photograph."

 

That is an interesting notion. If the value of the image rests with the correctness of representation, I would be compelled to say that it could go either way. Removing barrel distortion with PS, an effect that is wholly created by the photographic process, could render an image truer to life. If the value of an image is evaluated by someone without first-hand experience of the reality in which the photograph is taken, we might judge it on our own perception of the norm.

As an academic arguement, I would assert that a photograph is a rendering of an acute persective of an event. A perspective that is wholly controlled by the photographer and is inherently biased. In photojournalism, how does one decide to take a scene from one angle and not another? How does he/she decide how to depict an event? How does an editor decide what is too graphic and what is publically acceptable? Wherein lies the real truth? Within that context, some purely technical perspective correction is a minor alteration.

#1 looks very clean and professional but feels too corporate. #7 is a little better. #10 is fun but too busy. I'll pick #11 with some modifications. Its simple and clear but something is amiss with the proportions.

I would like to know the general consensus of opinions on correcting

photograph distortions in post production. Some purist-photographs

appear to cringe at the thought of any photoshop correction of

perspective lines as demonstrated to my comments on this photo.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3484395

 

Personally, I feel that image tampering of this kind have been

happening long before Photoshop came around. A Adams used to say

that 50% of a photo was created in the darkroom. On a more global

level, I'm a little at a loss to understand why correction in

photoshop is any worse than correction with a tilt/shift lens. I'm a

little taken aback when I see such resistance to post-production

correction. Is it a slippery slope? What do you think?

I hardly comment. Sometimes it takes too much effort.

 

I do find ratings, as flawed as the system might be, still a fairly reliable method to weed better images from weaker ones.

"Small editions and the corresponding prices are an economic necessity. ... That's life. It's all a matter of perspective."</p>

 

 

It is a matter of perspective. High prices are an economic necessity for the art galleries, not the photographer. Remove the middleman and its a different economic paridigm. People don't buy high priced photographs to keep the galleries in business. Aside from artistic interest, people pay top dollar for limited editions photographs because they'll, hopefully, be good investments. This is an over-generalization of course, but the point is that the premium set by a limited edition photograph is only to add value to that particular item. A photograph, unlimited in some manner, will not retain its value by virtue of the laws of econimics.

If I'm going to plunk down some serious dough for an Original Ansel Adams, I would like to know that he print is limited and my investment will be protected. If I don't care to pony up the the money for the limited edition picture, I'll get a cheaper unlimited copy. As all art has in intrinsic value attached, I don't see why this is an unsound business practice. I like to save the word "greed" for nice companies in the insurance business.

1) Photograph nude women</p>

2) Photograph attractive women</p>

3) Photograph attractive nude women</p>

4) Photograph attractive nude women doing yoga</p>

5) Don't photograph nude men</p>

6) Don't photograph nude men doing yoga</p></p>

 

I've a feeling that without some nudity, half the geezers on this site would feel kinda left out. 8P

I also wanted to add the fact that the comment "very nice photo" is not substantially different from many of the comments you'll find for the POW. The fact that the same comment is used on a multitude of photos does not change its meaning. The fact that the comments are being used at a phenomenal rate, is unusual but not unexplainable. The point that use of such comments may be used contarary to the spirit of an open and constructive forum not an issue with the critiquing process but a product of weak ratings process. Thats the real issue.

 

You can ask for constructive criticism, but dont be annoyed if you don't get any.

I've gotten my share of "very nice image" comments and I would like to think that the poster really likes my photo. I hate to be naive but I must consider that English is not the first language for quite a few PN users. If typing and copying "very nice image" helps someone communicate their appreaciation in a manner that does not force them to expound the nature of fine photography in a foreign language, I would take it for what it is. Unless this person is plunking down "very nice image" for every single photo that comes down the gallery, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

That said, if this guy is indeed after reciprocal ratings, who gives a damn?