tom_ziegler2

<p>Ummm...Louis Daguerre, William Fox Talbot, Joseph Niepce. Were these people artists first or scientists first? Where would photography be without them?<br>

One of the reasons I was drawn to photography was because of the highly technical aspect of it. Also I'm pretty sure that technology is the application of scientific research. It is interesting in that Talbot sort of "discovered" art while applying his craft.<br>

Glen, just curious, how is Language a technology?</p>

<p>I certainly make significantly more exposures in digital than I ever did with film which is why I've got two film cameras (Hasselblad and Contax IIa) to force me into "thinking" about what I'm taking rather than just making an exposure because the scene looks interesting. Also as I've mentioned before I tend to keep even the bad digital shots.<br>

Also I find myself being lazy while shooting digitally in that I can always post-process the photograph. Might be a bad habit.</p>

<p>It appears as if we've pretty much explored this question. Nevertheless something struck me ...<br>

Most have pointed out that we learn from this "disliked" photo. I completely agree. Ok, we've learned. If I dislike a photo of mine or someone else's I stop looking at it. There are too many images for me to view (and "like"). Why should I waste my time spending effort. Maybe I'm not finished learning. However the real truth for me is that I don't get rid of this photograph. My hard drive is jammed-packed with mediocre crap. As I'm perusing, whoops, there's that bad photo. Why oh why am I such a pack-rat; even when it's virtual space?<br>

In the case of Charles. That is amazing. Morbid with a lasting legacy on the frailness of human life. </p>

<p>Very well put, Fred. Not that it matters to the group, but I converted to Judaism back in 2008 and I believe it affects by perspective of photography. My mother (Roman Catholic) died in 2002, and I say Yizkor on the 22nd of Tevet (Dec. 27). OK, well I've slipped the past couple of years. <br>

Yes, we're both skeptics.</p>

 

<p>Agree Mark, Fred and Stephen. Fred, did you choose Judy Garland for a reason? Belting her heart out in "Smile" and yet having this heart wrenched with dispair in her life. Smile indeed is not only a status symbol, it doesn't even portray "Truth" as we discussed earlier. Perhaps it's our job to illustrate the yin-yang of life and let the viewer sort it out for her/himself.</p>

<p>Pierre, I believe you nailed it. 1-2-3. I am in the midst of "preserving" my father's photos of seventy years. It's a daunting task that is more selfish than sharing.</p>

<p>Wouter, I do love Ansel Adams, but do you know what struck me the most when I viewed an original print? The technique. I didn't notice "El Capitane (spelling?)". It was the tonal quality that made my jaw drop. Is this the image or technique? Subject for another discussion.</p>

 

<p>Love your images, Luca, though the second example ("E.") moves me more than "In the Bar" particularly because of the light in the lower left corner. My eye naturally gravitates to that section. Do you think some cropping might focus attention upon the subject? Again, I digress.<br>

For me it's not so much that I dislike my photography it's that I'm embarrassed to display it with such an illustrious group of photographers as what I've seen in this forum. I've studied photography professionally and have made it my living during most of the 80's yet I don't think I measure up to the quality of photographs I've seen with this group. Could it be that our (read my) "dislike" of our photos stems from self-esteem?<br>

I don't care for the cliche, but there are scenes that I've photograph where the phrase, "I know it when I see it" comes to mind.</p>

<p>Fred, very interesting photograph -- rather nineteenth century from my perception . Can't say it's to my liking either, but as you mention there's something to be learned. <br>

Nevertheless there are a number of photographs that almost make my skin crawl and yet for some perverse reason I look at them. They are on another level of consciousness or idea in which I can't relate. There are others such as the work of Weegee that utterly repel and yet fascinate me. "Their First Murder" is an example. Nothing in the image itself, but think of the timing of the photograph.<br>

Sorry I digressed. <br>

Luis, do you mean Len Jenshel? I love Tice and Adams, but I can agree they did not reach out like Bresson or Cunningham.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the "idea" of truth. To quote from the New Testament, "Truth? What is truth?" Is Gordon Park's photograph of the cleaning woman truth or a statement of the times? We perceive...we feel...we interpret. Also a mediocre photographer can produce an excellent image. There's no good or bad photographer, only those who are more successful at their craft.<br>

I applaud this thread, just don't know where it's going.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, John, but I don't understand your question. Much of what you are asking is personal -- specifically when it comes to shortcomings. What I may perceive as a shortcoming in myself can perhaps be a strength mixed with a low self-esteem. How does this related to the original musing?</p>

<p>I would have to go along with Dan and Stephen when it comes to grief or injury; particularly when I perceive that I am invading one's space. There are events we witness everyday that, for me, should be kept as being experienced and not captured, or held hostage, for future viewing. Even when the person viewing this is only myself. Of course the photographs which require specialized equipment, lighting, etc. such as high-speed photography. I guess that goes without saying (even though I just said it).<br>

Another situation is when someone says, "Oh, take a picture of that!" I feel obliged to honor their request, but with a great amount of reluctance. My greatest fear is that the image will fall short of their expectations and mine. I use the camera in my phone quite often. That is a boon AND bane. </p>

<p>I haven't contributed a response to this forum for quite a while -- which is a good question in and of itself to be saved for another time. As for Stephen's concern, yes, Photography is a wonderful tool for therapy and is, as people have mentioned, therapeutic in its own right.<br>

Thanks too to Judy for her links. I intend to follow up on them. <br>

TomZ</p>

<p>A couple of months ago I purchased a Quantum Qpaq-X 400ws kit with both a PB1 and PB2 battery module. I wasn't surprised that the battery pack in the PB2 compact battery was spent, but rather than having the module sent out to be recelled I decided to take a whirl at it myself. It looked pretty straight forward, just ten sub-C NiCads connected in a series to produce 12 volts. I selected Sc 1.2v, 2100 mAh from batteryspace.com and the shrink wrap. I disconnected the connector from the spent pack and put it to the new one. Everything seemed to be going well though I was puzzled when the pack was completed I was reading between 13-14 volts instead of 12v. I thought it was just a variation in the makeup of the batteries. I reassembled the module and again tested the voltage which read about 13v. I charged up the unit before testing a flash. After four hours the last of the four green lights on the command module kept blinking as if I was not getting a full charge. A test of the battery with a flash produced only one full fireing before going down to almost empty having the Qflash panel read "Check Power". "Hmmm," I thought, "maybe it needs a couple more charges". I wanted to see how much voltage was present before the recharging and it STILL came up at 13volts. A recharging didn't work as it was a repeat of the first go round. <br>

Don't know what is going on. I was pretty careful with my soldering (admittedly it was a bit sloppy). I didn't perceive any areas where the cells could short. Now I'm perplexed and am willing to admit my limitations.<br>

Any thoughts as to what I did incorretly, and how it can be remedied...besides sending it out for repair like I should have in the first place. All is not lost, however, as I did enjoy the learning experience.<br>

Thanks,<br>

TomZ</p>

My sincerest thanks for your comments and suggestions. There's a wealth of good information here. I would like to mention, Brooks, that I probably didn't communicate well regarding weddings. I don't have a reluctance to direct my subjects. Heck I usually work with CEO's and federal agency directors on a first-name basis. It's the emotionally charged atmosphere of a wedding, and the importance of getting the image of the bride and/or groom's face smeared with cake. Strong magic afoot.

The subject line isn't meant to be flippant, just eye-catching. I'm

wondering if there is anyone within this community who specializes

only in social event photography? In my current position I've been

frequently called upon to record social events and visits by

dignitaries, and now after nearly twenty years of being away from the

freelance market -- mostly architecture and business public

relations -- I feel it's time to "get back in the saddle". Trouble

is, I have never done weddings nor do I have any inclination to do

so. Weddings require a special blend of temperment and talent I'm

afraid I do not posses. I prefer capturing events as they unfold

acting as an unseen observer rather than a director. Yes, I realize

that it's not as lucrative as the wedding scene, but there should be

some need somewhere. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

 

Thanks...TomZ