kirk d

<p>Officers don't want to investigate a crime and fill out paper work. Sounds like he was being a good officer, he accomplished several things. he established that you were unlikely to be scoping out the property and he reminded you that you have to watch yourself when in a neighborhood like that, although your glasses with paranoia filters saw this as a "watch it boy, I've got my eye on you" when if you read the words he is reminding you to watch yourself in that neighborhood. Then he actually hung around to make sure you didn't fall victim to a crime of robbery of your photography equipment.<br>

In this day of placing blame on government for everything that goes wrong, you can't blame them for being over protective of the neighborhoods. I got stopped last year for photographing a bridge that crosses the Mississippi River down here in New Orleans; I was standing on a public walking path that runs under the mile high bridge. Same as you, I was asked what I was doing and was told to make it quick and not come back and do this as officials are worried the bridge could one day be a terrorist target and taking pictures of it could be seen as scoping out the structural aspects of the bridge.<br>

Anyway, you didn't get brought in and arrested - build a bridge and get over it.<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>Never thought to look there, that was to easy. Thanks Mark.<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>I inadvertantly added an image to "My Favorites" and can not figure out how to remove it.<br>

I did some searches and could not find any thing to help.<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>I carry easily in my cargo pants pocket - might have a problem with tight jeans, though. Don't let space be an issue.</p>

<p>A monopod is the best VR you can invest in. If you're having to jack up to 1600 ISO, then two stops will likely not be enough to make much of a difference in the way of shutter speed.<br>

Even if you get this new lens, make sure to are utilizing all your wits when you get out there. If you can roam around the sidelines, you may be able to pick up an angle that will give better lighting. Get as close as you can so you don't have to zoom all the way into 200, even shooting at the lower ISO and closer to 70 and just crop the shot you want; unless you're printing over 8x10, you shouldn't have a problem with image quality with the D300. See if shooting RAW allows you more possibilities in post processing. Just some thoughts, you may already be doing some or all.<br>

Have fun,<br>

Kirk </p>

<p>Benjamin, maybe if you would have started like, "I used umbrella lighting successfully for 10 years and made money but neglected my artistic side and didn't get creative with the umbrella...I highly suggest everyone explore non-traditional ways to use this tool. I have since abandoned the umbrella for lighting that is easier to get creative with..."<br>

Man, did Richard Avedon criticize your early umbrella work for you to get into such a rage against yourself and thrash around?<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>Cathy/David,<br>

I suspected that is what you were referring to, I personally call it selective coloring but that's is how terms go - differing all the time.<br>

I haven't ever done a wedding but when I first learned I could do selective coloring, I did a few. I rarely do it any more and most of the times I see others do it, it is more random without adding interest or meaning.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>Cathy/David, in a post above you wrote, "...Also glad to see you haven't over processed your images or done any spot-color."<br>

What is spot-color?<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>I shoot both depending on what I'm shooting. One thing I do like about RAW is applying adjustments to other images in Camera Raw/Bridge - if I have multiple shots of something, I can process one and apply those changes to all the others. Granted, you can do that in PS by dragging layers into the other image once opened but once you flatten, you can't grab those changes to apply.</p>

<p>I have both a fast 50mm and a flash. There are limitations and advantages to both.<br>

I'm not sure about Canon, but the Nikon flash allows you to dial down the intensity of the flash. I've taken pictures at birthday parties of the cake candle blowing out and dialed the flash down to the point where the background is pretty dark to black, the subject is has the warm glow of the candles yet sharp.<br>

Now, the limitations on the fast lens is that in order to utilize its light gathering capabilities, you will be forced to use a wide open aperture, which will limit you to a very shallow depth of field.<br>

I find my self using the fast lens more in low lighting outdoors and the flash indoors.<br>

Kirk</p>

David, I kind of figured that was your approach. Thanks for the tip for educators and you and all for the RAW education.

 

Kirk

That makes plenty sense; finally, I see! I forgot about the camera doing auto sharpening and possibly other things.

 

Funny of you not to take anything for granted and start at the beginning so as to not underestimate my lack of knowledge by starting off with "push button, shutter fires, picture taken".

 

I wonder if Lightroom gives the education discount to teachers...thinking out loud.

 

Thanks David,

 

Kirk

Russ, I've used the White/Black/Grey pointers and often get extreme results, I just began fooling with the opacity of those selections and have not gotten the hang of moving points and the like. I just got the most current version of NX.

 

David, I think I have a gap in my understanding of RAW displaying in editing software. I hear of the camera making adjustments for the JPG version and CaptureNX making an adjusted image for display in its working space and then about RAW images being just data in Lightroom. How does that look? Are the files one big white or black image or a bunch of multi-colored dots that change and take shape as you adjust settings? I would think editing software would have to make some assumptions in order to display the image for you to view and have a place to jump off. Even a negative is an image albiet, opposite. Does my lack of understanding make sense?

 

Kirk

On second thought, I think there are a couple advantages in RAW. One option is in changing the color space from sRGB to the others if you have a printer that supports the additional colors. Another, I guess is saving to TIFF to have a wider range of bits to work with (those options are mostly utilized by professioanls).

I'm still not getting rid of Phototshop, the number of photos I've saved using the healing brush and clone tool are alone worth the price of admission.

 

Kirk

I don't get it. I have been shooting jpg for years and occasionally shot RAW because so many people say it is the way to go. When I do shoot it, I find I am limited so much by the adjustments I can make in CaptureNX compared to the fine tuning I can do to JPGs in Photoshop. In PS, I can adjust exposure, contrast, white balance, color correction, noise reduction, lens distortion, chromatic abborition, dodge and burn with layers, and the list goes on...

I still shoot RAW on a lot of stuff because so many people say it is the way to go and maybe one day when I find out why, I will have my RAW files to come back to. For now, I just batch convert my RAW files into JPGs in CaptureNX and go to town in Photoshop with fine tuning adjustments not possible with RAW files in Capture.

I'm open to suggestions, please convince me otherwise so I can reap the benefits of shooting RAW.

 

Kirk

I have a couple friends with D300 and they love them; a matter of time before I make the plunge.

 

The price is coming down too. I saw the body with the 18 - 200 for $2,100 on Cameta Camera's ebay store and they have other comination kits to include battery grip, spare battery, etc.

Fred, when I read Sontag's philosophy, I immediately think that you wrote that as how you feel about photographing strangers and homeless without speaking to them. I to have felt the way you and Santog feel when going about the city street, which is why the picture I posted of the tent city does not contain a person, some of the other shots I took of this phenomenon are similar with no people - just haven't posted them yet.

Good thread Fred.

 

Kirk

(I don't know how to activate the rich text to use italics, I hope this works.)

 

Mike Dixon said above, "As for the original question, sure, it's fine to think your own photos are great. But please don't go on and on about it to other people--let them figure it out for themselves."

 

Excellent point and I would like to add, Mike, one way that I find people go on and on about their stuff being great without actually saying so, is by telling you this and that piece of theirs is "fine art".

Fred, I'll bet you weren't wearing 3-D glasses were you?

 

Good points as usual, very good. Interesting images, very haunting. Pondering what you said and thinking on feeling, being, and looking haunted, it dawned on me that there are different "levels" of feeling haunted.

 

The image of that house, you're right, as an old house, it looks haunted. I realize/d that subconciously and that is why I included the dead looking creepy tree with the creeping fingers. To give a haunted feel.

 

Granted, it is not the deep, level 5, version you illustrated that if seen in a movie would make you look back over your shoulder when going to your car but...I think I have the haunted looking house with a creepy tree that makes me feel haunted but just on level 1.

 

I guess I'm creeped out easier than you. Maybe you think Citizen Cane is level 1.

 

Your statements are worth studying and are goals I will have to shoot for. Don't hold your breath just yet, though.

 

Kirk

Wow Pnina, you said a lot in a little space - great quote from Da Vinci. I have always agreed about critique and would do precisely what you said. See if it improves it - it has just been a while. I believe you made an offer about my image of my wife playing the piano and it worked and the image was better. Also, Fred and Gordon have made some helpful critique that when I applied them as I understood them to mean, I was pleased. A couple times I can remember not.

 

Kirk

Fred, I like the objective thing in your second to last sentence. We must have been writing at the same time because I was replying to your first comment and when I posted, saw you had the second one.

 

Walt, in addition to giving my example which I appreciate comments on especially Fred's, there is also a question to you at the end to discuss how you as a photographer treats others' interpretations of your photos.

 

Kirk

Fred, thanks for the comments. It is the Black and White version to which I am referring. I agree, that a menacing sky would add a haunting feel but after creating the color one first, I wanted to not add anything to this one.

 

The tree, the point of controversy 1/2 like, 1/2 dislike. Of course I'm from the half that likes and this is why: I feel the tree conveys that haunting/menacing feel in several ways. First of course is the symbolic presence of an apparently dead or dying tree with its bare branches. Associatively, many people or at least myself associate overhanging tree branches with creepy circumstances. Then you have the tree, there in the front edge hiding the approaching viewer from the foreboding house, giving him a place to stop and survey the grounds and decide how to approach cautiously. I guess too, the stark contrast in the bark on the trunk and the overhanging branches appear menancing to me.

 

The points you bring up about locals liking it because the memories stimulated, it a good point but the comments also include the word haunted. I guess that could be from memories to but then again, a friend of mine's wife from Yugoslavia who has never seen the structure in person looked at the picture and said it was haunting.

 

I'll tell you though, I like your advice about revisiting. You know, I'm not very schooled on the symbology and picking elements that "express". I'm working on it but have a ways to go yet.

 

Kirk

I agree to questioning ourselves and I welcome critique and actually, I should have elaborated about the strangers quesitoning my self. When I do question myself concerning this particular pic, I really can't see where they are coming from and the answer I find myself giving is that I feel this is perhaps the image where I've conveyed what I intended to convey at least to myself and all the locals that know this "alledged" haunted structure.

 

Felix, if you look under Fred Goldsmith, Pnina Enental, Gordon Bowbrick, Jeff Long and even some of my images have dialog between two or more photogrpahers that will take you at least two cups of coffee to read through. You just haven't found the right people's images to comment on or have comment on yours.

 

The hostile criticism is what I'm wondering about, you see I feel it may be hostile criticism being masked as constructive criticism as on that same image, 1/3 of the comments were actually positive.

 

Kirk

 

Kirk

When I photograph something, I usually intend to translate the feeling or heart

of the subject I'm phtographing, even if its as superficial as beauty. If I

didn't capture it like I wanted in the camera, I often can use post processing

to help convey my intent.

 

Other times, I just shoot something because its interesting and when

downloading and maybe doing some basic processing, something comes to mind and

I go down that path to bring out what I saw. I don't stop until I'm happy with

it - that is when I put it up here or another site to get others'

opinions/interpretations.

 

Sometimes, my intent is picked up other times it is not, sometimes comments are

made about removing elements that I think are crucial to the intent. I'm not so

jaded that I think everything I do should not be questioned otherwise I would

not put images on critique forums but I'd like to think I'd hope that I am half

good enough to recognize when I've created the feeling I was after.

 

I've always wondered about this when seeing conflicting intent/interpretation

comments come up on some images from Fred Goldsmith, Jeff Long and maybe even

Gordon Bowbrick. I just thought it interresting to see the different commenting

and discussion. Well, now, I recently posted my "LeBeau House" on another

critique site (its in my portfolio but I don't know how to do that link thing).

Anyway this other site is much more brutal than anything here and people are

encouraged to be forthright and blatant. Well, its ironic that many of the

derogatory comments I got on this image are about the elements I included that

I felt conveyed the deserted, haunted, yet grand feeling you get when you know

and see this structure. These comments ranged from distracting or unnecessasry

to "generally messy" (whatever messy is supposed to mean). Everyone down here

that is familiar with the structure is amazed at how well I portrayed the heart

of this old house.

 

Yet, these strangers have me questioning myself. Is it my insecurity or is that

reasonable?

 

Do you ever question whether your intent was realized and when you get

interpretations from others that are different than your intent or when you get

corrective criticism. I'm not talking about a crop or tone adjustment but "man,

you need to go re-shoot that picture" kind of comments?

 

Kirk

<div></div>