dseltzer

I very much appreciate James' candor about the "urgency circuits." I knew they had to be there! That aside, I'd like to add that one pays a price premium with laptops, not for their features, but their portability, so why pay the premium if the machine's going to be in one place? Along with the reasons James detailed, you'd likely get more machine for your dollar by getting a desktop.

Janine, what's the reason you're thinking of getting a new laptop? Are you happy with the Dell? What to suggest will depend, at least partly, on why you're upgrading. In a general sense, I'd think you'll want something plenty fast - the fastest processor you can afford, with lots of memory, an HD screen, 17" for sure, a large hard drive, and ample ports, including IEEE1394, USB, and a DVI connector. Then, there may or may not be a question of operating system, and that's a discussion in itself that I won't go into now, but glad to share what I think I know if you want.

Thanks.

I gotta say I like the new layout and look. Very nice. My one question is, what happened to being able to see a

picture larger? I'm guessing the ability is there and I'm just not seeing it, though I guess that function might

have been deleted or replaced. What's the scoop?

... Or... not... starts to look like I'm the only one with some interest in photo printers. Hmmm, so, does that mean the majority of folks send their work to photo printing companies? If so, does that'/would that hamper or constrain creativity? I think it might be similar to just having the idea, and maybe telling it to someone who subsequently renders the final product. So, tell me, who's the artist? If I create a photo, process it as I will, and have it ready to print, what would posses me to give it to someone to print for me, using their best judgment and interpretation of what they thought I intended?!

 

Well, a somewhat long way around to the idea that I like to print my own prints so I have artistic control over that final stage in creating the piece. Thus, my interest in printers.

Hi. I've been using an Epson Stylus Photo 2200 for several years. It continues to work, if awfully slowly, and

it's beginning to make some noises. The print quality is excellent, though not continuous tone, which is pretty

noticeable with many images. When I bought it, the 2200 was "best of breed" for certain, but that was about three

years ago. An eternity in the development of new technology. Looks like the Epson R1900 might be a reasonable

next machine, but I haven't been able to find very much information about the quality of build, output, and

comparison with machines of similar caliber.

 

If it is not a "too good to be true" come-on, I've found a site that is offering a Canon PROGRAF iPF5000

discounted to $999.00. I'm sure the print quality is outrageous, and the speed, too (two print heads), though I'm

wary of the ink prices - about $900 for a 12 cartridge 'fill-up,' vs. about $130.00 for an ink kit for the Epson

R1900. Given the ink cost, not to mention double the initial cost, I'm not considering the iPF500 awfully

seriously... and I'd have to be certain I could see a clearly defined difference between the Epson and the Canon

before I'd seriously consider whether the quality difference would justify the greater expense.

 

And then, I'm sure there are excellent photo printers used by probably many of you, that I've never even heard of

or seen the brand name! So, I'm interested if anyone would recommend other brands (besides Epson, Canon and HP)

that are worth a look.

 

Thanks, all, for any comments, stories and personal experiences and advice.

<i>"the only thing that really will suprise you about what people think of you ... is how infrequently they actually do"</i>

 

Spot on!

 

And to Iftikhar: You are (IMHO) so correct about the lack of response to a critique (a well thought out one) being discouraging of future expense of time on critiques. While I'm perfectly fine with not mattering in general, as Thomas so eloquently pointed out, it is a bit discouraging if I spend time to try and give a good critique, only to never know if it was seen, helpful, appreciated, or not. That doesn't usually happen with people with whom one has established at least a minimal PN relationship.

Hi Colton!

 

When I was new to PN I asked the very same question you did, and I got similar answers. Since then, I've made it a point to try and learn how to comment, that is, to learn how to describe what I see in a photo so I can comment constructively. Once I started leaving comments on other folks' photos, they started looking at and commenting on mine. Now, I've made a bunch of PN friends, and they've been great with constructive criticism, suggestions, some praise (we do need it, even if we don't grow as we do with challenges), and I've learned bunches and still going. I've also found, much to my surprise and relief, that the people who are super accomplished are generally very open to critique, want to know what others think, and they often really want to know how their images affect others, aesthetically and emotionally. They are also some of the best teachers, both because they know what they're doing, and they've been where you are and haven't forgotten it.

 

I'm gonna head over to your gallery now, and I will leave a comment or two. I hope your experience here turns positive, and I'm sure it will.

I can't imagine why you'd get yelled at, Beau. For what? Like you, I stopped using the rating system some time ago, and I've been much happier. I so much prefer getting comments - *including* criticism - I'm here to learn, and getting numbers doesn't help.

 

Not only is what Bob said true (according to Seltzer, that is :) ) but were it not for folks stepping up and saying what they *don't* like, I wouldn't likely learn much. Praise is nice, and I think we all need it, but it doesn't do much to promote growth.

 

If the climate is mainly due to complaints about the rating system, I'm sure that will wax and wane as long as there is a rating system. And I think PN should keep the rating system, otherwise those folks would have to (and would!) find something else to complain about.

Recently, I've seen some comments that seem to indicate at least some people are

hesitant to post on PN because of "the current climate." Is this of no

consequence, just another way of complaining about 3/3 ratings, or am I

oblivious to some change in the community? Just wondering.

Matt, Thanks for the detailed explanation. I didn't realize the noise difference was that large, but then I didn't have the comparison, either. And I can certainly see that noise difference being significant for shooting babies, or anywhere one wants to be inconspicuous. Interesting, too, about the size factor... another thing for which I had no comparison, but I was really shocked by the small size of my Nikon, and while I'm not a large-handed guy, I actually do prefer beefier gear. Sounds like I'm gonna have to have a look at the Sigma when it comes out... I wonder if the Nikon will have a reasonable resale value... ah, well, this should be the worst of my worries, eh?!

Thomas, judging from your work, you weren't fishing for a compliment with your remark, and it's the only bit of crap I'd attribute to you!

Please forgive me if this ought to be a separate thread, but this discussion has piqued my curiosity. I have a Nikon/Nikkor 50mmg f 1.4D that seems to do a very good job. Yes, I understand the difference in focusing, and that the Sigma has an internal focusing motor, so it's a bit faster, and quieter. Frankly, I really wonder just how much of a focus speed difference there could be between an AF-S or HSM and a lens like mine that depends on the camera's screw motor. (Yes, I understand some cameras can't operate an AF lens, so I'm putting that aside for the moment.) But given a fraction of a second's difference in focusing speed, is there really a $200 advantage for the Sigma over the Nikon?

FWIW: Just looked through your portfolio (some very nice work, BTW), and nothing I saw was even remotely "horrible" on my Apple 23", calibrated with Pantone's Huey Pro.

<div></div>

Tosha, You've absolutely no reason for embarrassment (or the shame it's based on) if your goal is learning and honing your knowledge and skills. That's what PN is all about. A long time ago, one of my teachers told me that the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked.

 

About your one eye in, one eye out problem... another aspect of DoF is the film or sensor plane in relation to the subject. In your example photo, the little girl's eyes form a plane that transects the film/sensor plane instead of being parallel to it. This is the principle behind tilt lenses, by the way. You'll find a whole new world of considerations opens as you begin to consider the focal plane along with the other parameters that affect whether something is in focus or not.

Dave, I don't think perfectionist is the right label, though I understand what you're saying. I think Ton has it about right: growing up. My personal twist on that is to suggest you've moved from "layed back" and "good enough," which translate into mediocre, to trying to get as good as you can, which is never ending. It's also infinitely more satisfying and fullfilling, frustrations, disappointments and failures included.

 

Ton, I really like the Strand quote. I think it captures why most of us are here at PN, and the idea that anyone who seeks to improve knows there's no end to the process.

 

BTW, Dave, I'd argue that your "casual" grab shots have and will improve, too, for the sake of knowing and considering more with each shot, even the ones you don't ponder long before shooting.

 

Last (for now) Tim's got the idea, IMO. The only cure for what you've caught is to keep pressing the shutter button!

Gord,

 

Glad you liked these. I was pretty sure you would. You're right, I'm quite sure, that his ability to pre-visualize has to be a huge advantage.

"That picture of the lady whose eyes keep following me." Perfect! I love it. <VBG>

 

I'm inclined to agree about speaking with authority, and the line not being all that fuzzy. As I often do, I was wanting to allow for differences of opinion, and particularly for the possibility I might infer an intent that isn't really there. That said, I actually do think it's usually pretty obvious... at least I think so ;) !

 

You've expressed so well what I think about titles often being of most value because of the information they convey about the artist, themselves, and that is something I highly value. The only exception I'd take to what you said is that I think if I'm endeared to someone by the philosophy, wit, and fund of knowledge evidenced by their title, I'm sure I am at least somewhat favorably biased toward their photo. Not that that's a bad thing, just that I think it exists, and it's certainly fitting that the artist is an inextricable element in each piece they produce, so knowing more of them via their title serves to enhance the experience of the art.

Coming upon this discussion so long after everyone has spoken, I wonder if anyone will even see this, or if it can add very much, given the already detailed discussion. Obviously, I chose to comment anyway, partly because I want everyone to know I've read what all you've said, and that it's interesting and worthwhile to me.

 

Sometimes a title basically creates itself, or the image does it for me, and sometimes it's an arduous process to try and generate something that helps orient, extends meaning, tells of my intent and/or my reaction to the image, adds what I hope to be a bit of wit or humor, or just helps identify the picture. I appreciate and enjoy many of the titles folks put on their work, and they often give me a window into what the person was thinking as they conceived the picture. On balance, I think titles add more than not, and I strongly agree a title has no power to imbue an image with something it doesn't already posses. When it appears to me that someone is trying to do that, it serves to negatively dispose me to the image. On the other hand, how can I ever know for sure if someone has actually tried to improve the image with a clever title? Concluding that can never be any more than my opinion, can it?

 

This is one of those issues that raises many thoughts for me, and I fear I've probably already gone on too long. I'll end my contribution with the question that keeps going through my mind about this: How would we go about discussing the Mona Lisa if it had no title?

Emmanuel: No offense perceived or taken, just different ways of looking at the same thing/s. I do very much respect your opinion, and hope I didn't communicate anything contrary to that. Now that you've raised the question, I really wonder if I'd have reacted differently to the pics had I not known the author. I can't ever know that now, but it's a very worthy question.

 

Lex: I'm sure you're right that few understand or like motion blur photography. You've obviously been interested enough to work with it, and there are a few others on PN with experience and expertise in it. Gordon Bowbrick is the one who most comes to mind, and I'd love to know his opinion of Baryshnikov's work.

Baryshnikov is a perfect stranger to you? I'm surprised, but even were it so, why so harsh toward his photography? Were the pieces shown not skillfully made? Were they not made with a clear sense and feeling for the dances and the dancers? And as I'm writing, I'm also thinking that while one could argue there's a simplicity to children's art, there's also a fresh, unvarnished freedom of expression and honesty. So, I think, maybe children's art isn't so bad, after all. Then, comparing what I conceive as children's art compared to the Baryshnikov images, there is unmistakable polish, expertise and finesse as he explored a photographic genre that is by no means easily produced.

 

My thanks to Laurent for showing me something I most likely wouldn't have found myself. Obviously, I disagree with Emmanuel, but we probably have different brands of refrigerators, too!

I wish you much learning and pleasure on Photo.net. I look forward to seeing your work.

<b>'scuse me,</b> but I think what I understood Pete's original idea to be has gotten hopelessly buried in bickering about time and rules... it was a very informal agreement among <i>supposed</i> friends, to share a moment together. I wanted to, but circumstances precluded participating, and just uploading a picture (from any time) just wasn't/isn't getting the plot.<p>

 

Those who either misunderstood, or tried to join in on something in which they hadn't participated, <i>just didn't share the moment.</i> The fact that they uploaded pictures in the name of the project, without authentically participating, doesn't dilute or take away from the fact of anyone's actual participation. Those of you who did get the chance to <i>really</i> join in are no less fortunate for doing so just because others missed the mark. It's simple: <b>you either participated or you didn't</b>, and <b><i>you</b></i> know if you did or not. Whether you wanted to, meant to, should have, would have, wanted others to think you did, and whether someone who genuinely participated was right and someone who didn't was wrong is simply irrelevant.<p>

 

Tell you what... let's have a project for which everyone who wants to participate takes a picture of anything they think shows or implies sharing. If the submissions have to go into our own portfolios, we could each create a "Sharing" folder we could later hide if we wanted. Actually, I'd personally be happier to have such a project supported by the creation of some a central repository, maybe it could be a forum thread, or a "dummy" account named, say, "Sharing Project" to which everyone would have open access. I don't know, I have no website expertise, so I don't know what's possible. That'd have to fall to Josh and Jin.<p>

 

Or, how about a project to see who can write the most erudite forum thread about correct PN project participation? No, wait, I know, let's have a project to see who can come up with the best project for diverting our energies away from anything to do with photography! Yeah, that'd do it.

Thanks, Josh. Not sure how I missed it, and I appreciate your info about the timing of the post. Hadn't thought of that.