reza motaghedi

<p>Thank you for response.</p>

<p>Can we upload paintings is this website or we should only upload photos? I would appreciate if one of the administrators answer my question.</p>

<p>simon I have purchased a GF1 two months ago too. Apart from the camera which is nice nothing else is good about company. I wanted to buy a spare battery they told it was not available. I wanted to buy a case for the camera it is not made yet (something that exactly fit GF1). Manual is horrible to read. I am quite sure that their customer service is not good too.</p>

<p>I just connected my GF1 to TV and very easily looked at the photos on the TV. I am not sure about laptop</p>

<p>This is an image from GF1 unmanipulated (only file size reduced for the web and slightly sharpened).</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for comments<br>

Today I purchased GF1. It is amazing. everything that you can imagine in a camera, is there. I have not printed anything yet but did a comparison on monitor and it was far better that my 20D in anything. color rendition, sharpness and resolution. It can be enlarged more than 20D. I am really happy with that.<br>

Reza</p>

<p>Ben 13'X19" is exactly what I had in mind. Recently I printed some of my photos taken with 20D 12"x18". Image qulity was quite good (pin sharp with no pixel visible) so that I could even print them a little bit larger. If a Lumix can give me a print like that it is enough for me. I dont expect more than that from a four third system small camera. Just taking the same result but being able to carry the camera everywhere is a huge advantage for me.<br>

Lumix GF1 is $1000 here in Canada. I can buy a Rebel T body which is much better with exactly the same price but I am sure I would use it much less that a Lumix.</p>

<p>Hal thank you so much for your comment.<br />But that is why I wrote I dont want comparison between 2 cameras in terms of other features because I was quite sure that there are some Canon fans who get offended as soon as they hear the name Lumix, a pocket size camera, compared to Canon and they will nitpicking on my words and start a semantic debate.<br />I know Canon is better than Lumix in terms of durability and many other features but I want to take photos. Because of my lifestyle, I dont have time to go out for only photogaphy and I also find Canon with a 24-105 lens heavy (you may call me lazy).<br />With lumix I can always carry it whenever I go out for any reason and take photos. If you have a Hasselblad but you never use it, it is like having no camera. My only concern was that I cannot get prints as large as Canon 20D that I already have. When I say print, I mean print with acceptable quality not a print with 4 pixels as Tommy says. He may now argue what I mean but the word acceptable!<br />But it seems from your comment and previous ones that I can get prints of the same size.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you Mike and Yoshio</p>

<p>which one of these cameras give larger print?<br>

1. Canon 20D: 8MP with crop factor of 1.6<br>

2. Lumix GF1: four third system 12 MP with crop factor of 2.0<br>

assuming both camera have good lenses<br>

My question is not which camera is better. I am just curious to know with which one of these cameras I can have a larger print.<br>

Thank you for your responses</p>

 

<p>I had to print some of my photos recently and realized that my monitor (laptop) was not calibrated. Although photos look completely balanced in terms of color on my monitor but they were way off balance in print and other monitors. How can I calibrate my monitor? is there any software for that or Windows has a setting for calibration. I apprecite if anybody answer my question.</p>

<p>Thank you JDM.</p>

<p>Is there anyway to block your portfoio temporarily for 2 weeks or at least only PN community be able to view it?</p>

<p>As far as I remember those with glare have serial numbers less than 4000. But I am not quite sure about that. You need to double check it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Never let empirical evidence get in the way of a good ol' prejudice, eh..? Maybe if people don't actually look at them, they'll go away...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are commercial websites that are loaded with reviews that a new upgrade is fantastic and blah blah. They said the same things about 50D. Whether it is better than 40D in terms of noise I don't know, but for sure many of those who upgraded to 50D are not happy because of noise issue. For somebody like me who doesn't upgraded every year it is always better to laggard and wait a few month until there are more reviews. Of course if you are an early adopter you can buy it right now and if doesn't trun out to be good you can buy the next upgrad next year.<br>

Good luck</p>

<p>It is better to wait and see the real tests by more people. I never trust all these techno babble by Canon. They said exactly the same things about 50D but it turned out to be a crappy upgrade and more noise than 40D. 18 MP is too much for a small sensor. This is again a marketing thing. Sorry if I dont sound positive but I d rather to wait.</p>

<p>I have heard that 50D apart from its high noise gives softer images (compared with 40D). This is what I heard. Who wants to pay more to buy a camera which gives worse result? I am waiting for 60D.</p>

<p>For aesthatics I usually try not to be influenced by my personal taste. But certainly if the photo is something that is taken everyday like landscape, sport, some of the portraits, etc and it is not different from photos that you may see everyday (including many of the top rated photos in photo.net) i usually give a very low score for originality.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, this is all a semantic debate. Nobody can give criteria that a style of photography is better than others. But certainly, like it or not, everything around us is subject to the rule of supply and demand. Although there are certain rules that create certain psychological effects. Relation between lines, spots and surfaces in a frame whether they are straight, oblique or curved, their location and relation to each other may give you a sense of stability calmnes or excitement unpredictability,or unstability and so on and so forth. But even a very effective photo in any sense, if taken over and over and over for millions of times, it would lose its popularity and value. It would just be a copy paste of someone else work. It may look beautiful to someone who has not seen many photos. But those who have seen a bit more have a right to say that this photo is not original or not as good as a photo which is strong AND original.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, this is all a semantic debate. Nobody can give criteria that a style of photography is better than others. But certainly, like it or not, everything around us is subject to the rule of supply and demand. Although there are certain rules that create certain psychological effects. Relation between lines, spots and surfaces in a frame whether they are straight, oblique or curved, their location and relation to each other may give you a sense of stability calmnes or excitement unpredictability,or unstability and so on and so forth. But even a very effective photo in any sense, if taken over and over and over for millions of times, it would lose its popularity and value. It would just be a copy paste of someone else work. It may look beautiful to someone who has not seen many photos. But those who have seen a bit more have a right to say that this photo is not original or not as good as a photo which is strong AND original.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That includes the OT, of course: Little is more "conservative" than to claim one is apart from the masses by virtue of "artistic" "rules."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography is a profession similar to other professions. In medicine or accounting if you claim one method is better than others it doesn't mean you are humilliating others or they are inferior masses. But I don't know why some people think photography should be an exception. There are people here who want to block any exchange of idea on basis that it is patronizing or not politically correct or it is generalization or some people may get offended. That is why you do not see many threads in philosophy of photography forum.<br />To be honest I don't see any reason to do self-censorship and I will post more threads like this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick are you sure you are the only one here that knows about lighting, composition, form, color theory and those rules that you are talking about?<br>

Rules are tools, they help you to get better photos but they should not limit you<br>

And with respect to your other comment:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We live in an atmosphere of self important, self engrandized people who are so blinded by their own egos that they can't see their own faces for their nose. They can complain all day long that their images get low ratings or that they can't sell them or that not enough people like them</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"If I was concerned about being accepted, I would have been doing Ansel Adams lookalikes, because that was easily accepted. Everything I did was never accepted...but luckily for me, my interest in the subject and my passion for the subject took me to the point that I wasn't wounded by that, and eventually, people came around to me" <strong><em>Duane Michals 1966</em></strong></p>

<p>Ton my criticism is not based on one example. It is a trend. But if you think any criticism is generalization or I am projecting something into it, then let it be. I still believe is some parts of the world or in some communities people are more familiar with modern art.</p>

<p>I am not quite sure what we used to call modern art 60 or 70 years ago should be considered edgy today. I am surprised why they are not mainstream by now and I know for sure that in some cultures and communities that type of art is part of thier daily lives more than other cultures. . That is why I was talking about conservatism. A painter like Kandinsky introduced abstract forms in 1911. a photographer like Andrea Kertesz was taking photographs which even today look quite creative ( they were not just reproduction of a scene or face with good lighting or contrast) in 1920s. But I have noticed that for many people these type of art is still indigestible. That tells something. I don't forget that in one of these forums ( I think it was in philosophy of photography forum in PN) one of the photographers wrote a full page attacking to and insulting people who liked post-modern art and he was approved and cheered by almost all other PN users (apart from one of them). So we can conclude that majority are still conservative when it comes to art.</p>

<p>Thank you for all the responses. Josh you are right. When I told photo.net users I meant people in general because people from all over the world are here.<br />And I agree with William too. Photographers these days are more interested about technical aspects of photography than artistic aspects of it. Even when they talk about the photo itself they never go beyond " nice photo, it has a good contrast or texture" while contrast, textureand tones are just tools. Or when they say good composition, they are not interested to know what elements are in that composition which make the photo exciting other than rule of third and golden rectangle. They just use some formula in their photography. And forget about those core elements that a photographer is trying to communicate whether it be just a feeling or a meaning; that is never spoken.<br />Matt good point; maybe that is why classic art is mainstream. Otherwise it wouldn't be classic. but the point is that absract or what we call it modern art today, or even post modern, tableau and ... have started years ago. They should be sort of mainstream now but still most people in general don't like them.</p>