don_e

<p>"On the other hand I believe that if you export with the same name and same format to the same location, then you are actually overwriting the original file (though I haven't tried it)."</p>

<p>LR brings up a dialogue to either overwrite, skip, rename, or cancel.</p>

<p>The only tool I use in Nikonscan is Digital DEE for the shadow/highlight control. Scan and save at highest bit depth and dpi and import into LR. I'm not settled on how to scan silver b&w on the Nikon V. At the moment I prefer Vuescan. Haven't used Silverfast, and don't have the scanhancer hw...yet.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Understand about the desert that there is not much color. It is mostly a dull yellow ochre. Except for Cottonwoods, the greens are dull grayish green-blue. There are no reds, nor any blue besides the sky. The good color occurs a minute or so after sunrise, and for longer before sunset. Light gets good after the heat of the day -- around 4-5 in the pm. If you are planning on Velvia or Kodachrome, wait for those times. Otherwise Reala or Kodak Gold 100 will work. It is too early probably for cactus blossoms or Cliff Roses -- a lot of the color is in rather small-sized plants. The environment is very reflective due to the sand which contains high levels of Selenite, for example, and coats everything; meter carefully if you've got a good shot in the viewfinder. It is cold. Even if the sun is out, it is cold, due to the wind, so take some layers of clothing. Sunglasses, lots of water, and a good hat (I like Panamas) to prevent headache and constipation. In the wind protect your lens with a skylight filter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I meant that the lens is tight..."there is no slop"</p>

<p>I think exchanging it is a good idea. I've used my Nokton 50 (bought from KEH as LN-) on both the Canon 7 and Leica IIIf. There is slop on either, except the "dot" is not at the center-top.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"So when folders get consolidated or moved it annoys me that it shows up on LR as "missing" when I have already imported it once."</p>

<p>"Then what the correct way to import them to LR without the fear of the imported photos showing up as "missing" or "offline" later on?"</p>

<p>You not only import a file, you also import it to a specific location. When you move the file, unless you moved it using LR, LR has no way of knowing where it was moved to until you tell it. You do not import it again. It is still in the LR catalog only its location is now not known, so you have to tell LR where it is now on the hd. <br>

If you had a file in Folder A and you moved it to Folder B, would you expect it to show up in Folder A when you browse it with Windows Explorer? You know it is now in Folder B, not in A, but Windows Explorer doesn't know it has been moved. You have to navigate to Folder B to view it. Same with LR. You have to tell it what you know, ie where you moved the file.</p>

<p>I think you are under-utilizing LR. You are adding complexity to your workflow by doing a lot less, and that at a lot slower speed, than if you learned to use LR to its capability.</p>

<h2></h2>

<p>Or don't make any sub-folders. I download digital images according to the date, letting LR make separate folders for each date (based on EXIF). Then instead of making sub-folders for this or that subject, I make LR Collections.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've got a Nokton 50 on a Canon 7 and the dot is off-center as you wrote. No problem.</p>

<p>"D: That's an interesting point, particularly coming from someone who takes — or rather, composes and then snaps— lightning-fast shots.</p>

<p>W: I'll say this, I'm pretty fast with a camera when I have to be. However, I think it's irrelevant. I mean, what if I said that every photograph I made was set up? From the photograph, you can't prove otherwise. You don't know anything from the photograph about how it was made, really. But every photograph could be set up. If one could imagine it, one could set it up. The whole discussion is a way of not talking about photographs."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>in 135...50mm, unless it is a fixed lens camera with a 40, which is ok, too.</p>

<p>Fred: "Because the quote Mike Dixon supplied ("The photograph isn't what was photographed. It's something else. It's a new fact.") says something very different from "the subject speak[ing] for itself." Winogrand seems to be distinguishing greatly between subject and photograph of subject and you are not."</p>

<p>Yes, I supplied the full quotation above: "Earlier tonight, I said the photograph isn't what was photographed, it's something else. It's about transformation. And that's what it is. That hasn't changed, largely. But it's not that simple. Let's put it this way — I photograph what interests me all the time. I live with the pictures to see what that thing looks like photographed. I'm saying the same thing; I'm not changing it. I photograph what interests me. I'm not saying anything different, you see."<br /> and: "There is a transformation, you see, when you just put four edges around it. That changes it. A new world is created."<br /> There's this from GW:<br /> "I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." -- GW</p>

<p>I don't think there is any difference in the way GW or I distinguish between the subject and the photograph.</p>

<p>"I'd fear missing both the trees and the forest by looking for easy catch phrases to describe what Winogrand or any other photographer does."</p>

<p>What we know is GW was consistent over time in making these statements, and, according to his students, they are what he taught.</p>

<p>"The strength of photography, they (Szarkowski and GW) thought lay in its descriptive abilities. GW's descriptions of his own photographs, adequate or not, are the insights we are left with directly from their maker. Since he said many times he had nothing to say with his photographs, it is easy to see how others may find his words inadequate."</p>

<p>I think it has more odds of appealing to photographers with a documentary interest. At least, I cannot imagine it inspiring many I've read in this and other forums; I mean those who's approach to photography is self expression, those who want to communicate something to the generic "viewer", those who want to get their message across, tell a story, or have what they call "impact".</p>

<p>"I photograph things to see what they look like when they are photographed"</p>

<p>I take this simply literally. We cannot form a conscious thought at 1/500. We cannot consciously excerpt any 1/500 and see it. The more activity in the frame, the less close are our conscious approximations of what we have just photographed. There is accident and adventure; the photographer is closer to being a viewer, because the photograph is to some degree an unknown, and GW went further to remove himself, delaying developing -- seeing "what they look like when they are photographed" -- for a year or more.</p>

<p>Somewhere in the interviews available online, GW refers to letting the subject speak for itself and also letting the viewer have breathing room. Those are my language, I think, not GW's, but the sentiments are identical.</p>

<p>Calibrating your monitor would not affect any raw files. The best I can suggest is if you know someone able to convert raw files on their computer, give them one of your old ones and see what they can do. Otherwise, you could post a link here to one of the old raws and see if anyone would convert it and what results they get.</p>

<p>Kari, I've not used that monitor. What I have read about it is that viewing angle is very important and it should be viewed directly and not from any angle, because of color shifting. If you were using the monitor with the factory color settings before calibrating. it is likely set too bright and too cool. I have owned other Dell FP's and that was the case with each one.</p>

<p>" <strong>2/ </strong> After calibration <strong>I don't use</strong> the calibrated settings on the "color matching" (might that be the correct name in the english version of Windows ?) instead I use the "color matching" of sRGB at all time hereafter ????"</p>

<p>The calibrated settings profile your hardware -- your physical monitor and video card; it is not a working color space. It is like a printer profile, which also profiles hardware -- a printer, inks, and paper. Working color spaces, such as sRGB and AdobeRGB are what one uses in software such as Elements. A properly calibrated monitor will display those color spaces in a consistent way in color managed software on your computer, and also on any other computer with a properly calibrated display. Use sRGB or Adobe RGB or any other working color space you want.</p>

<p>"And, as evidenced by Winogrand's own work, expressiveness and expressionism can infiltrate documentary work.<br>

The photos in the above links to Winogrand's work don't just document scenes and moments. I see him doing a lot more than what he's telling us he's doing in that quote, though what he's telling us is something worth pondering."</p>

<p>About the Fort Worth livestock show and rodeo, GW said: That's the way we're living. It's one world in this world. But it's not coverage; it's a record of my subjective interests.</p>

<p>And in the Bill Moyer's interview: "I’m very subjective in what I photograph. When things move, I get interested, I know that much. Women interest me. How they look - certainly how they look, and how they move. Their energy."</p>

<p>I find this interesting:</p>

<p>"D: Several years ago a student did ask you which qualities in a picture make it interesting instead of dead. And you replied with a telling statement describing what photography is all about. You said you didn't know what something would look like in a photograph until it had been photographed. A rather simple sentence that you used has been widely identified with you, and that sentence is: "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed." That was about five or six years ago. And I know there are few things that displease you more than being bored. So I would hope that you have since amended or extended that idea. How would you express it now?<br>

W: Well, I don't think it was that simple then, either. There are things I photograph because I'm interested in those things. But in the end, you know what I'm saying there. Earlier tonight, I said the photograph isn't what was photographed, it's something else. It's about transformation. And that's what it is. That hasn't changed, largely. But it's not that simple. Let's put it this way — I photograph what interests me all the time. I live with the pictures to see what that thing looks like photographed. I'm saying the same thing; I'm not changing it. I photograph what interests me. I'm not saying anything different, you see.<br>

D: Well, what is it about a photograph that makes it alive or dead?<br>

W: How problematic it is! It's got to do with the contention between content and form. Invariably that's what's responsible for its energies, its tensions, its being interesting or not. There are photographs that function just to give you information. I never saw a pyramid, but I've seen photographs; I know what a pyramid or a sphinx looks like. There are pictures that do that, but they satisfy a different kind of interest. Most photographs are of life, what goes on in the world. And that's boring, generally. Life is banal, you know. Let's say that an artist deals with banality. I don't care what the discipline is.<br>

D: And how do you find the mystery in the banal?<br>

W: Well, that's what's interesting. There is a transformation, you see, when you just put four edges around it. That changes it. A new world is created."</p>

<p>http://www.jnevins.com/garywinograndreading.htm</p>

<p>Luis: "I never said that GW's statement had anything to do with documentary photography. I just want that to be clear. He, along with many others, made the breakaway from the expressionist tradition that peaked with Steichen's Family of Man show."</p>

<p>I don't want to characterize either yours or GW's comments as refering to documentary only or specifically or as if such a thing actually exists. But I think they have an appeal for at least some documentary photographers more than for those who do not consider their work as primarily documentary. It would have little appeal to photographers who cultivate an expressive style. </p>

<p>I don't know why Phylo starts it off with Atget.</p>

<p>"Question... Since someone told that Windows isn't color managed.... Is there any "picture-watchin-software" that are well color managed which I should use instead of that in Windows ???"</p>

<p>Elements come with an "Organizer" module. The Organizer cataloged images, had a viewer and a slideshow. They are color managed.</p>

<p>What is the model Dell monitor you have?</p>

<p>Phylo, I think you are refering to GW's photographs and the relationship with the work of other photographers. I think Chris' question is about GW's philosophy of photography:</p>

<p>"In relation to history of documentary photography up until the 1970's does this comment really make sense by good old Gary?"</p>

<p>about which Luis wrote:</p>

<p>"His and Szarkowski's position was a fundamental one, a return to the essence of the medium, shedding the top-heavy theory of the expressionists (and pre-visualization) of the day."</p>

<p>Would the other photographers, from Atget to those just before Winogrand, have agreed with him? I don't know what "really make sense" might mean, or why its sense would be dependent on some relationship to the history of documentary photography, but a good starting point would be determining whether GW was in a philosophical tradition of documentary photography or not.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Don, I think you're right."</p>

<p>There's nothing in my previous to think right or wrong, so I don't know what you mean.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Just asking."</p>

<p>Perhaps there is someone reading this thread who also considers it to contain abuse of the innocent and will have an answer for you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis: "Great picks, Don E."</p>

<p>I've been mulling them over and concluded that, except for the first one, they represent the kinds of photos I like to take on the street; for example there are no street portraits. I recall now that I chose the first one to add some variety.</p>

<p>John: "Intelligent people with good intentions, like Don E, respect questions and questioners"</p>

<p>It is not very often documentary is discussed in this forum. Chris attempts it (four times, now), but I do not understand what he writes. This is his second Winogrand thread. Based on two previous threads of his to that one, I had assumed he would have a favorable opinion of GW, since he articulated a dislike of "too clean" or "too perfect" (perfect in the stock photo sense, I guess) photos, and GW's are hardly too clean or too perfect -- but I guessed wrong. Maybe, other instructors/other semesters. I don't know what.</p>

<p>I'm am interested in what he meant by "In relation to history of documentary photography up until the 1970's does this comment really make sense by good old Gary?"</p>

<p>Anyone have a clue? His criticism of GW is old school artsy fartsy as people our age should recognize. All that's lacking is 'news photographers make good photos because they have the luck of being in war zones and natural disasters. In those circumstances anyone could take a good photo' -- except GW didn't do that sort of work, but otherwise its a 'full Chicago' art school trope from 1970 (or choose your own decade).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not certain whether this answers your question, but...</p>

<p>(I don't know whether this is the way Vista does it. I use XP)</p>

<p>After you have completed calibration, the calibration software creates a monitor profile which is saved to C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\driver\color\</p>

<p>It should then be the default monitor profile when you boot up Windows. You can confirm this by right-clicking on the desktop, choose Properties from the menu, go to Settings > Advanced > Color Management to see if the profile is selected. If it is not. add it, or if it is listed, select it, and Set As Default.</p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by "color matching" or what Elements or any other program has to do with it. The calibration characterizes the video system (card and monitor) and is independent of any image editing program and any working color spaces.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't understand your process, but here's mine.</p>

<p>Choose printer profile to soft-proof ProPhoto RGB image<br>

Turn on gamut warning<br>

Edit to eliminate gamut warnings (usually reduce saturation of darker hues)<br>

Convert to printer profile<br>

Edit to restore (usually closing up the left side in Levels, and add saturation)<br>

Use crop tool to edit size/dpi<br>

Final sharpen<br>

Save (not necessary to save with profile)</p>

<p>Works for me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It might be a Practica.</p>