aginbyte

Lightroom. Load the shots in with camera metadata. Pre-load the variable metadata

(client, title, etc.). You can preview on the spot, even "develop" images on the fly.

30,000 images, 600GB, stored on 1TB internal harddrive, mirrored on a 2nd internal

1TB HD, original backed up daily to an external 2TB HD, third internal 1TB HD waiting.

Tom, if you are shooting RAW and want the best quality, the only thing to really do is

take the laptop. When we travel for five to seven weeks, we have the laptop all

configured to receive the images, post the metadata, make selections, and organize.

Every day's shoot is processed in about 45 minutes in the evening, then backed up on

a portable hard drive. Done! Then you clear out the cards and start fresh the next

day.

... but there are a ton of great pictures coming into the Critique Forum in the last week. Usually I

can go through at high speed and pick what I like, but not now. So, nothing bad to say, just to

congratulate the members of PN. Keep shooting!

You signed the release to protect the agency from any claims based on using your

photo. By signing it, you are saying that you had all the rights to the image including

the releases from any people who are in the photograph. In representing that, they are

free to use the image. If someone does sue for the usage, they will be directed to

come after you since you submitted the photo with these representations.

There is nothing in this wording to protect you, it is not meant to. Nor is there any

restriction on you using the image for any purposes of your own.

Jerry Cipriano and Colin Carron have hit the matter on the nose. With the wide

dynamic range in a church or cathedral, you need a tripod (have you tried anything like

a gorilla-pod?) Also the wide angle lens is crucial. I like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L

USM as well.

Very important post, Max, thanks. I suggest that everyone go to the third link and act

on this. Need to stop this ridiculous piece of legislation.

Re #3 in your post: Display the bitmap as you see above. The zoom checkbox was

checked so individual pixels (red, green, or blue, with 2/3 of them green) can be seen.

Shouldn?t 1/2 the pixels be green, 1/4 blue and 1/4 red?

Devastating news. PJ and I were to meet Alberto and Leila in Catalonia in September.

Let's hope he is in a place where he can cherish his castles and his friends.

I use Lightroom, the edits are non-destructive. They are stored as instruction sets, so that

the original is always available. If I want multiple versions, it is easy to make a virtual copy,

edit that. All you are storing is instruction sets. When you need to output (a JPG or

something to convey to somebody), you essentially render that shot through export. Keep it

or not, your choice. Hugely smart solution.

Here's a link to last year's program ... you can click on testomonials: http://

www.festivalofthephotograph.org/2008/june_2007.html#

Laurie, if you feel someone is sabotaging you, thank your lucky stars that person is so

inept. A quick review of your top photos (self-selected) shows the following: 20 photos,

110 ratings, average rating of 5.33/5.19 and a total of five 3/3's, two of which are not

counted in the ratings. That means that of the 108 remaining ratings, you have received

three 3/3's. Percentage? 2.8%. I don't mean to disparage your work, but all but two of

these were fairly common floral shots, none of which I would personally rate in the 6/6 or

above category (with a single exception) and one of which is out of focus (rated

5.67/5.67), a second is posted at 2" x 2" (rated at 5.67/5.67), and a third has burned

highlights and black with no detail at all (rated 6/5.67).

I clearly have no idea why you would make such a post in this forum.

The original post is not a rant ... a rant has a point. (Posted by a happy member of the

Society of Agrarian Photographers, just another SAP to post to this idiocy).

I think Lorenz' discovery was the underlying order in a seemingly chaotic system or set. And

the subsequent mathematics was a way of expressing this order. It seems that the theory

found a way to describe that which was discovered, the underlying order.

In honor of Mr. L, I submit this photo by Kah Kit Yoong, amazing for its capture of <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5880114">Lorenz attractors</a>.

1. French Romanesque church architecture

2. French Romanesque church architecture

3. Spanish Romanesque church architecture

Sorry, but I'm pretty boring. It's like shooting landscapes or flowers, you can never quite capture the mystery and the beauty, no

matter how many shots, over whatever period of time. But it is an incredible feeling to walk into the church and start shooting.

What does art have to do with it anyway? I have watched theater arts get expanded by

and then completely diluted by performance art. I have watched cinema art expanded by

and then diluted by digital movies made by individuals. What at one moment is a

challenging and exciting varient on the artistic "norm" is soon a cliche and derided as out

of fashion. It seems to me, therefore, that real art is the intersection of innovation and

convention. It is not the innovation, and it is seldom the convention. But then someone

comes from left field and re-establishes the definition anyway, so it REALLY doesn't

matter.

The problem is that we are left with people claiming the prestige of art without bringing

anything to the table. I saw on PN the other day where some was commenting on grafitti

on a train and said, substantially, that although he didn't condone grafitti, it was clearly

the expression of someone's personality and therefore art. I have a dog that eats slippers

and tears them to shreds as the expression of his personality, but it ain't art. We are full

of images with dutched angles, self portraits with camera, solemn landscapes and

closeups that are clearly intended to be art. And on the other hand, we have closeups, self

portraits with camera, and landscapes that are clearly nothing more than interesting

observations of what they are. One shot of a bottlecap will be called "Detritus of

civilization", a second, "Bottlecap". Guess which one was intended to be art? I agree with

Felix' ex-wife ... "An artist is someone who just f***ing gets on with it."

BTW, Matt, your definition also serves to define engineering.

Dangerous ground here, to analyze based on so little info. So I went back to your

portfolio ... Antonio, the two top images that you show were taken in Santa Barbara,

California, in November, probably when you visited your girlfriend. The only thing that I

can say with any confidence about your portfolio is that THOSE images seem to be happier

and brighter than the others, either before or after that trip. Two possible reasons, the

emotional boost in seeing a loved one and the beauty of Santa Barbara. There are still

"lonely" beach shots, and there are images of decay in Santa Barbara as well (mention this

because of Kristina's statement) ... the coke sign and rusted ship hull. But overall the

mood is bright.

My only caution would be to be wary of reading too much into your shots at this time.

Emotion and the mind play into everything artistic, but only time reveals the deeper

currents.