see_r

<div></div>

The shaded area of this map represents the regions of 29 Palms,

California that are susceptible to flooding.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

When I was a small child I took my dad's Nikon and dumped it in the bath tub.

A few things:

 

1) I did not "torch her rating" as I gave a 6 for originality.

2) As for the other ratings and any other critical comments about my post, I would have to deflect such comments more appropriately towards the inherent nature of the rating system in which the word used to describe 1 of 2 categories is "aesthetics". So then yes arachnophobs might rightfully rate pictures of spiders poorly, etc. It's not that I am criticizing the rating system here, but rather the comments towards me here are actually misdirected.

3) Would love to have seen Janet Jackson's nipple.

On the front page of PN I find the vampire image, while original, to be quite

disturbing and not reminiscent of the aesthetically pleasing images I

generally find on prominent display on PN.

I think this system will be useful for all of the reasons discussed; however, I haven't yet seen it implemented when I have given ratings.

Pete, Thanks for your comment--you imply a correct point, which is that I should have elaborated initially. Actually, I didn't feel qualified to elaborate on the details of his work because I felt it was beyond me (I mostly only know about landscape). But perhaps the following would illustrate the quality in Joe I discovered in what education refers to as an 'ah hah' experience:

 

After several hours of looking at Joe's work, which was all over his house, my wife wanted a picture of Joe with my friend and his 2 year old child who live 2 doors down from Joe. I stood in the background next to my wife and we both tried to invoke a smile from the child. We could not. Then Joe chimed in and invoked the desired response. Now originally I wasn't going to comment on this because it is not my image to provide the illustration for support or for others here on PN to interpret. My wife would have to post the before and after, since they are her images. But what I discovered from that is that Joe has a great ability to interact with his subjects to get the expressions he aimed to catch on film. That is what I meant by loving his subjects. In sociology, it is called "participant observation."

I mean this guy is like 93 or 94 years old...a pretty good piece of history

here from a photography perspective. I mean here was a guy who was actually

focused on the human aspect of photography vs. just a bunch of gearhead

philosophical eggheadism.

 

..........

 

 

I had the pleasure of spending yesterday morning with Joe Schwartz. His home

is filled with his work, which is not only an important documentation of

history but also clear evidence of one who has mastered composition and has

loved his subjects.

 

A link for more information --> http://www.joeschwartzphoto.com/

Ach, the gearheads...

 

Well, this CCD is likely to be useful pretty much only for the purpose for which it is shown--astronomy.

I had the pleasure of spending yesterday morning with Joe Schwartz. His home

is filled with his work, which is not only an important documentation of

history but also clear evidence of one who has mastered composition and has

loved his subjects.

 

A link for more information --> http://www.joeschwartzphoto.com/

""Jim, "I think what your seeing is the gap narrowing between beginners and pros." I think just the opposite. Give a newbie a 16 MP camera and most of the image will be still be crap, give a pro a $6 dollar disposable and the photos will sing."""

 

There is some false logic here flawed by overgeneralization and short-sightedness. While this statement may be true for certain extremes, it certainly doesn't hold true for the entire set of photographers. For example, you don't account for natural talent, ie. those 'newbies' who have more talent than many pros ever will have.

There are some excellent points raised here. A very important point, however, needs to be emphasized. Unlike with interior photography, the appearance of the subject in the image often time's depends on the interpersonal interaction between the subject and the photographer. In other words, the behavior of the photographer can influence the appearance of the subject, ie. the couple getting married.

 

I was recently married and I recall our photographer, as we were walking down the isle out of the church at the end of the ceremony, calling out to us to come outside for a shot because he wanted that particular shot before the other guests appeared there after the ceremony. Well, the wedding coordinator didn't allow it (wanted us to sign the papers first). Well clearly both the wedding coordinator and the photographer were hard heads stuck on their idea of how things should go. But we were obligated to go along with the wedding coordinator because it is their church, not the photographer's. Well, the photographer didn't like this and started basically shouting at us to come outside.

 

How does shouting at your subject affect the resulting images (or lack thereof)? Well, fortunately I kept my cool (after all, I was getting married) but I just as easily could have gotten really pissed off. How would that look in a photograph?

 

With that said, if this guy you are choosing has never shot a wedding or other event and you still think you might want to hire him, I would base your choice at least as much on how he interacts with you and your spouse-to-be as you do on the appearance of the interior photographs.

I am always impressed by MSNBC's The Week In Pictures and this week is no

exception.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3842331/?gt1=10150

 

In looking at this week's #7 (the shot in Lebanon), I am especially impressed

with the view to the Lebanese workers from the damaged appartment. At first I

wanted to charge the photographer (or other) with manipulation because with

the lighting it truly appears as if the scene is actually a picture placed in

an inset well in the wall maybe 2 to 4 inches away from the back of the well.

But actually, I really can't dismiss that this could be just an excellent use

of lighting. And I want to trust that the photo is genuine, especially since

it is photojournalistic.

 

Interested to hear any thought on this intriguing photographic result.

For the record and for educational purposes for the PN record, I am answering my own question as best I can:

 

1) The printer I used originally was the HP Photosmart 7150, and a Hahnemuhle tech support contact claims that a recommendation for a desktop printer for archival results is "not possible."

 

2) Epson's canvas does not have nearly the same texture as the Lumijet Canvas

 

3) I tried the Epson 260 with the Lumijet Master Canvas--absolutely HORRID results.

PS. my great grandmother was Ferguson, so I am entitled and qualified to speak so...

The great thing about photography is the lack of potential to slobber all over the blowpipe when it gets shoved against the roof of your mouth as you try to finish the tune...I'm sure glad I switched over, although I haven't yet won any awards with photography as I have with the (Highland) pipes.

 

Barry, The Scot drink plenty too. It's just that they are too cheap to buy the chair so they just stand and invented their pipes that way.

My gosh...can't/won't ANYONE answer the freakin' question?

"why do you care which machine does the scanning?"

 

Sorry for the delayed answer. I am convinced based on the following --> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

I never really got an answer to a question I posted last week. First, can

Lumijet Master Canvas be printed on archivally, say with an Epson?

 

If not, what system (canvas + ink + printer) can I use to print archivally? I

am printing at the 8.5 X 11 inch size.

 

Much thanks.

I am getting ready to put together an 11" X 14" portfolio of a selection of my

photography (mostly, if not entirely, landscape in large format) with the goal

of trying to get some appointments to try to pitch photo galleries for an

opportunity for a small exhibit. I have been thinking that I would just cold

call a bunch of galleries to try to get some appointments to show the

portfolio. If I could get a showing, I would use only high end production

means for (mostly) large prints for the showing.

 

Any suggestions as to how to add some finesse to my approach of contacting the

galleries would be greatly appreciated. Please provide details like who I

shoul ask for (the curator, I presume), maybe what kinds of things to say, do

I call or stop by, should I have a website first or can I just point them to

my postings here on PN, etc, etc.

 

Much thanks for any help.

Post them.

I doubt the actual photo printer (sorry, I still don't remember the model) mattered much in this instance, as the initial print job was quite nice. It was, rather, the durability of the ink on the canvas that was the problem. The ink cartridges used were the HP 57 and 58 set (not the imitations). It was quite nice for around a year before I started to notice the fading.

I agree entirely with what Josh is doing and I think it will be a good use of time. He has identified an exacerbation of an ongoing problem, and has defined a reasonable task to address it. After all, it sounds like it may take him most or all of the night just to remove a selection of recent, high-offending accounts.