Tim_Lookingbill

<p>Came up with an analogy to web based socializing. It goes like this...</p> <p>The internet can be likened to a big world wide dance where both male and female are all hopping up and down on the balls of their feet bobbing their heads to the beat. An individual arrives/logs on (you/me) asking one of them (male or female) "Would you like to dance?". The person responds..."We're dancing!", says no more and keeps bopping up & down to the beat.</p> <p>You/me puzzled by the vague response, move on to the next individual asking the same question..."Do you want to dance?" upon which the same reply..."We're dancing!" is uttered again until it dawns on you/me that they're really dancing for themselves, not for or with anyone else. But you still can't be sure due to the vague answers.</p> <p>I mean really they didn't lie. They were just being their own uncomplicated selves answering the question the best they could or maybe distracted from formulating a more specific answer from having too much fun dancing like everyone else.</p> <p>So what you/me start doing is our own dance flailing our arms about, throwing our heads back in wild abandon avoiding asking these individuals more specifically "Do you want to dance with only me?" because you/me really don't want or care to hear the answer as well as risk the possibility of being rejected (maybe from our dance of nonconformity) by uncomplicated people who prefer speaking vaguely whether they're aware of it or not.</p> <p>All in all you/me are still one individual sitting in front of a computer trying to connect with people on a meaningful level. How's it working so far? Over nine years of trying to connect I'm not so sure, but now I'm addicted but I don't know to what.</p> <p>This is the kind of stuff I sometimes like talking about on the Off Topic forum because I've gleamed from the level of communicative writing on this site there's at least someone who can relate or reply in a meaningful way to such subject matter. There's no place on the web to speak this way and BELIEVE someone is reading it or gets it.</p>

<div></div>

<p>So what I'm gathering from the responses here from mods and Glenn is that they prefer PN members develop bonds with PN individual members and the overall PN community through photography related subjects only and go elsewhere for other non-photography subjects.</p> <p>I've been a contributing member here for at least nine years (I've a collection of PN threads I've saved to PDF to prove it) and I still feel like a red headed stepchild. Where's the bond? It feels like I've contributed nothing in those nine years.</p> <p>The only thing that keeps me coming back here is the anticipation I'll find something new and interesting to discuss. But from what I'm seeing in the Unified View "New Responses" forum I'm finding I have nothing more to discuss that either hasn't already been covered or is just downright boring or is not in my knowledge base.</p> <p>Maybe I've been addicted to the hunt and the anticipation of finding something new. Not sure. I found another hobby editing music similar to what I've done restoring photos and underexposed Raw captures. That forum was the coldest experience I've ever encountered online. My first post I restored someone's poorly recorded music played at family get together, included screenshots of the edits and I got no response of whether it was to their liking. </p> <p>There's something strange feeling trying to bond with people by giving of yourself and find folks just don't give a sh*t. Even my local volunteering where I physically get to look people straight in the eye doesn't even garner a "Hey, I ya' doin'" when I run across them in public.</p> <p>Maybe I'm expecting too much from this "bonding" thingy.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I enjoy taking macro shots of my skin especially around the fingers and hands.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>I just can't get any information from any Noritsu outlet (USA/Canada/UK, Australia etc). They all want me to be on a service contract before they'll even speak to me and as this machine is only for amateur use, a service contract would be impossibly expensive.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ran into something similar helping out a fine art gallery owner new to color management, wide format scanner, digital imaging workstation and HP wide format printer.</p> <p>The business machine contractor didn't want to talk to me and answer my tech questions, only the gallery owner, who did have a contract with them only they wanted to charge $200 a session for over the phone consulting.</p> <p>I doubt you're going to get much helpful advice here on how to operate a Noritsu. I attempted to read the users manual at Walmart's Fuji Frontier scanner/printer setup so I could tell the operator how to generate higher rez scans and gave up. It was too complicated full of proprietary language instructions and acronyms.</p> <p>You might try to email Scott Martin on this site...</p> <p>http://www.on-sight.com/</p> <p>He has a thorough background on the use of such commercial equipment.</p> <p> </p>

<p>So, Damon, do you place any value in the decision process in your photography? And/or do you limit the valuation to only what happens at the time the shutter is tripped?</p> <p>Culling through video frames is the same as photographers who machine gun a shooting session (fashion photographers) and choose/decide the best from the bunch. The magazine editor gets to make the final decision on whether the photographer made good choices to be seen on their cover.</p> <p>This is why photography is the perfect vehicle for showing others how, when and on what one makes decisions with just an image. The photographer's appearance, financial status, politics and religious beliefs aren't even considered. Probably the finest way to communicate without prejudice getting in the way.</p>

<p>My annoying circular logic goads me into concluding Damon's Macbeth quote itself would have to signify nothing as well, not that I'm calling Shakespeare an idiot. That would be blasphemous.</p> <p>But I do agree with Arthur's and Mark's assessment of Von Wong's and even Alexia's stunning work as being mere image jewelry. I'm still left wondering why it was done, what is being said and where do I place the value. Or should I just appreciate it for just being a cool looking, dreamlike image and move on?</p> <p>It's difficult finding inspiration in another's work that I can't feel or find a way to push beyond what it is in my own work or interpretation, not to say that's the only way to determine its value. I tend to look at such work, be dazzled by it and then forget about it just as I did of Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo's work in the '70's. I couldn't top it, but I wasn't inspired enough to have it hanging on my wall all these years I've admired it.</p>

<p>Doesn't matter whether the final image was captured as a single trip of the shutter or culled through 60 frames a second from video, the final decision to choose which one is the best is what determines skill. What came before is left in the dust and doesn't deserve that much attention. At least the person purchasing such an image won't think, care or bother to know that much about it.</p> <p>Art directors for the publishing industry and museum curators are paid quite well for this skill, so choose wisely, photogs.</p>

<p>I know one thing if I'ld shot that same scene with my Pentax K100D DSLR as a single Raw still image I'ld have to do so much post processing to recover the blown highlights in the white feathers or else underexpose so much to where all the water was black. I've noticed this type of what seems very good on the fly auto exposure adjust and tone preservation from other video captures especially from GoPro 3 captures on YouTube but found out that there was quite a bit of post processing to make it look so good.</p> <p>Did you have to do any similar post processing or is that a direct unedited pull from the Quicktime video?</p>

<p>Can't top Alexia Sinclair for sure going by your link, Michael. I think she's created a color version of film noir only with way much richer and dramatic tonality. It reminds me of the look used in Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland". It's rich and dazzling to look at. She definitely knows where to place her blacks.</p>

<p>Just as long as "Epic" doesn't pigeonhole a photographer's style from being able to adapt to telling different stories in different ways instead of making it all look like an over dramatized 1970's Frank Frazetta/Boris Vallejo fanzine illustrated comic book.</p> <p>Wonder if "Epic" looking shots should be judged according to the craft behind their intentionally constructed, composited compositions and/or on the craft of telling an original story that's never been heard or seen before through still imagery.</p> <p>Or maybe it's OK just to be Epic for Epic's sake.</p>

<p>One caveat about the Fuji Dry Lab Photo paper I posted print samples here is that it also has a similar polyester "coating" but on paper and will crack if severely bent like say bending a corner. An online review showed this.</p> <p>I don't know if this will happen to the Pictorico white film since I haven't found any reviews stating as such but it is something to look out for. </p> <p>T.E., I remember the Epson film you speak of. They also made clear film not just white at least the kind I tried out on my Epson 1270 back in 1999. The black ink was so dense on this film no light could be seen even on a light table so much so that I thought as a former prepress production technician it could've been used for exposing masks for commercial press use for both offset and screen printing which could've replaced their chemical processes.</p>

<p>Yes, JDM, I am serious and a bit facetious in that you can't rely on anything you read or see online and even on cable TV as not being some type of propaganda or specifically selected and edited data to promote a biased agenda by the news gatherers either focusing in one area and giving a blind eye to another. The whole story is rarely told at a level to discern whether a sufficient amount of facts have been gathered in order to get folks to ask what is being omitted. You can't ask what doesn't come to mind but does it really make a difference in world affairs?</p> <p>As an example I'm sure you all are familiar with the O.J. trial in the mid '90's. I watched quite a bit of it back then and thought I got all the facts. Then about a month ago I saw a new Investigative Discovery story on Glen Rogers who was convicted of killing several women in Florida and California for the joy of it and just happened to be a handy man for Nicole Simpson hired (supposedly) by OJ during the time of the murders. I never heard of the dude. Police investigators didn't have enough evidence to go after him due to the fact they didn't know at the time he was a serial killer. Oh well.</p> <p>Lot's of investigative photographs to look at in that event and yet we couldn't find the killer. That's downright embarrassing, wouldn't you say? And here we are futzing about world events happening thousands of miles away in foreign lands and think we have all the facts.</p> <p>And yet the world hasn't ended nor can we do anything substantive with the information to make our world better unless you guys here got a plan of action I'm not aware in order to control world events to our liking.</p>

<p>If you're seeing and reading it online consider it all propaganda.</p> <p>However, unless someone can hack a selfie jpeg posted on Instagram and alter the geotag, I think that's the most reliable information so far.</p>

<p>With what is being accomplished digitally in post production today I can't understand why no one has come up with an algorithm or editing technique to duplicate the "look" of film the coalition of cinematographers seem to desire.</p> <p>Can these cinematographers describe what they're seeing or is it just all in their head? I mean I've seen side by side comparisons online where no one could tell film from digital. There's quite a few color grading technicians discussing software they use to make digital skin tone (monochrome plastic look) appear like it does on film. I've seen from their posted screengrabs what amounts to be the wrong type of lighting used as the cause, not the recording medium.</p> <p>http://juanmelara.com.au/blackmagic-cinema-camera-davinci-resolve-colour-grading-breakdown/</p>

<p>Something I forgot to mention about the two displays I posted above in that both have IPS panels which tend to have more balanced color out of the box over non-IPS.</p> <p>I know this from having to return a Vizio (non-IPS) to Walmart which comparably had off hues in skin tone, yellows, oranges and reds the menu adjustments couldn't quite get as balanced as the LG and Samsung. White balance adjusts were not as robust either.</p>

<p>It's slow and a bit buggy with the slider adjustments to preview updating on my 2010 Mac Mini 64bit OS 10.6.8. However, it's an improvement from previous versions going back to 2006 when I bought my Pentax K100D. Back then DCU was totally useless.</p> <p>Oh good lord! I just launched DCU 4 after about a year of non-use as I typed this response and it hanged for nearly 30 seconds until I had to force quit the darn thing.</p> <p>Nah! No complaints here, Harry?</p>