shots worth sharing

<div></div>

You're right that currency fluctuations impact price. However, at least in theory, the falling dollar makes imports to the US more expensive.

Thanks Mendel! I'm going to get the matting done professionally this time around but this will be prove useful down the road.

As I said before, I pretty much ignore all ratings under 4. I take any thing above that as an indication that somebody responded favorably and I'm happy. Comments hints and suggestions (even if I disagree) are pure gold. This is a big tough world and it's silly to expect universal acclaim.

 

Interestingly, I find that putting my stuff out for critiques and ratings has matured the relationship between me and my work. Even if I know that the photo has issues (and some certainly do) the decision to post it for critique and rating means I'm going to stand behind it as worth viewing. The occasional "nice shot." is all I need.

<div></div>

<div></div>

Oh, I absolutely do my own cropping! Why the chain lab can't get it right is a mystery to me.

Mendel, At first blush this all sounds like a morass but that's often the case, isn't it? But you touch on an important point: some of my photos don't fit ANY standard: sometimes you have to let the image dictate it's own dimensions.

OK, yeah, this is the guy who wrote that "Does anybody actually print photos any

more?" post a while back (which turned out to be an interesting and instructive

thread.) So, yesterday, having given up on the chain outfit which butchered

small prints, I went to the local independent shop and had big (12"x18")

prints made of about 25 of what I'd consider my best. I had this need to see

what they'd look like as prints: it's one thing to look at photos on a monitor

and another to see them in hard copy and I was particularly concerned that some

of my favorites weren't sufficiently high quality as files to survive the

transition.

 

First of all, I have to say it was a real pleasure to work directly with the

technician (is that the right word?) as she prepped the photos for print--no

sloppy crops here! It was the kind of working relationship I've enjoyed with

graphics folks working on publications: we speak very different languages but

manage to communicate with grunts and gestures as much as words. The experience

also confirmed my disinclination to directly engage the complexities of

printing--at least for the time being.

 

After a first look , I have to say I'm really pleased! I'm going to be a bit

less self-conscious about referring to "my work" after seeing it in the real, as

opposed to virtual, world (but the 3/3's here should serve as an antidote to

delusions of grandeur.) The next step, I guess, will be getting them matted and

framed and I'm realizing that this is going to run into expense a par with a

10-20mm Sigma, the acquisition of which I've been virtuously deferring.

 

A second observation: while I've preferred the 2:3 aspect ratio on-line, my

impression is that it isn't as naturally suited in the vertical

(portrait-oriented) shots in print--unless, of course, there's a compelling

rationale for it in the content of the image. 2:3's great for the horizontal

(landscape-oriented) photos but the verticals seem a bit "tipsy" so I think I'll

make 4:5 my default for verticals in the future.

 

I'd welcome comments on any of this--and especially that final issue.

And you, Dr. Freud, what do you think about this interest in portals?

<div></div>

I prefer the critique forum--it has the feel of a leisurely (thank you spell-check) stroll through a gallery, contemplating interesting work. What I don't like, I pass in silence.

Of course it can be used for effect--so can noise, soft focus, grain and hi/lo extremes of contrast, saturation etc. And, as my portfolio will attest, these effects don't have to be intentional to be good. Ok, if I'm going to cite my work, I'd better just say "interesting" rather than "good" but I think the point stands.

Thanks for the clarification, Justin, and the tip re FastStone--it's pretty nifty! I love the full screen view and it has a more agile feel than Lightroom. The only problem is that their pricing structure doesn't allow for an educational discount :>)

Justin, are there significant advantages doing the processing in RAW rather after conversion to TIFF?

Jim,

I took the plunge about a month ago and I have to say I'm still floundering about. I decided on Lightroom (with the educational discount) but haven't learned how to use it properly.

 

Although I've started to experiment with the image manipulation tools, I'm basically using it to convert the RAW files to TIFF and still use PS Elements3 for most of my post-processing--which, as you may have observed, is still fairly primitive. I'm planning to dedicate some time this winter really learning the tools and getting the workflow down.

 

Let me warn you about one thing though: RAW files are huge! and TIFFs are pretty big, too. My 2007 folder blew up from 10 to 18 Gig in about a month! They're slow to save and move, too--you can't just flip them around like JPEGs. This is a good argument for taking a methodical approach and making a point to work out a systematic approach. In short, do as I say not as I do.

 

The other thing is that this opens the door to a whole new (and, for me, massively intimidating) world of technical complication. There are those who love that and do magnificent stuff with it. I'm going to try to avoid it as much as possible (and, where it can't be avoided , rely on the kindness of strangers.)

I understand Matthew! I've resolved that the only autumnal photo this year will be a red virginia creeper shot. I've got one in my portfolio but it's poorly focused (I'm using wind as an excuse for that) and I'm keeping an eye out for the opportunity to improve on it. Given the drought, it promises to be a short ugly foliage season her in MD anyway.

I'd take a photo but I think that's been done before ;>)

Yes, you can have both filters mounted at the same time. I'm not aware of any that don't (but I'm not aware of a lot stuff) but just make sure your uv filter will accept a polarizing filter.

I agree with regard top the polarizing filter--critical for managing glare, particularly around water.

The boundaries between the categories are unavoidably vague. Some shots like flowers, birds and animals are pretty clearly Nature but they can also spill over into Abstracts, Landscapes and Portraits. I also scratch my head about some of my "bucolic street shots." I just close my eyes and pick a category. As far as I know, nobody deducts points for the mis-categorization of submissions (but that might explain my ratings ;>).

I returned to the fungus field this past Saturday (two weeks after my initial discovery and shoot. It was largely intact but clearly in a state of decline: fallen leaves and other detritus were beginning to cover it and the specimens had lost most of their color, leaving them a ghostly white.

Although he's talking about the library, Ken raises a good point relating to cafes, restaurants and pubs: the main thing the owner is looking for is traffic. You need to have an opening and get all your mates to stop by. If you demonstrate that having your work shown will get people in the door and put cash in the drawer, you can put your kid's crayon work on the wall for all they care.

I'm headed in the same direction--sort of. I have the advantage of having a watercolorist (sorry, "watercoloUrist") friend to guide me. His method depends largely on shoe leather and schmoozing--at which he's talented and which he enjoys. Get your stuff together, pull together a portfolio and go talk to cafe owners. I don't have any feel for the business end of all this--that is how these deals are structured ask the owners (and the artists.)

Yeah, but they're in cm--right? :>)