tonmestrom

Tarnished, I like that. For those of us who haven't got one, think positive. In the end we all get a marble one.

Ratings are utterly useless and only intended to keep people happy. As is rightly stated again and again. There are never complaints about 6 or 7 raters. Anonymous ratings you can't interpret because you don't know who gave them. The ones you get from people you know are more often than not biased because most people don't want to offend you. That's what I call useless.

 

You're involved in a creative process so how do you rate the end result. Yesterday a Monet was sold for 41 million dollars. How do you rate that. The whole point being that it's all based on subjectivity.

 

What's really valuable is getting an opinion from people who you can trust to give you an honest opinion. All the rest is only good for your ego. 3/3 or 7/7, best to ignore it.

if you're interested you should also look at the work of photographers as for instance August Sander or (a bit more contemporary) Andres Serrano. In general why some people find it disturbing is because death really is the last taboo. And still, in many ways it's also one of the most interesting parts of life. One that could do with a bit of demystification.

losing that cup cuts down on polishing though

hard to say. I studied photography at an acadamy of fine arts in the mid- nineties. However, I have a demanding day time job which doesn't make it easy to start and follow up bigger projects. I've done two exhibitions in an art gallery. The first on invitation since they knew my work. I do want to do that again sometime. Nowadays it's mostly street and documentary. I just started a project on short oval racing, not so much the racing itself but more behind the scenes. Who knows, a interesting series could devolop from that.

haven't done a real comparison but bought a 5100 for my wife a little while back and it works just great. In low light there are always problems while you can't up the ISO to far without serious noise problems. It doesn't do RAW either. But having said that I wouldn't change it for a Canon. A friend of mine got two and they show noise from ISO 100 upwards. It's great value for money I think.

Mostly it has to do with preference. I'm predominantly a b&w photographer. Did that on film and now do it afterwards in Photoshop. But some subjects I simply work prefer in color

 

The essence of photographic vision is NOT previsualisation. The essence of the Zone system is previsualisation!

Simple, RAW images are my digital negatives. External HD and at least two DVD's are used to save them. Can't be too carefull

".....I hope that the photo community will kindly point out what's wrong with my picture or if it's absolutely trash, then will simply ignore it"

 

If you think ratings will do that for you, you live in a dreamworld. Ratings are very biased anyway and don't tell you what you want to know. Comments and critiques might if you put in a little effort and try to find some people here who are willing to give you some honest and informed critique.

no worries mate. You've got yourself a wonderful site here. The occasional little glitch is part of life. Get yourself a blond one and relax. Good for our social life when your off the air every now and then.

although I know it's back-up time and we're being rejuvenated ;) access is

very problematic while the site seems unusally slow. Having extra problems?

leading lines are sort of "middle of the road". Composition has rules and leading lines can be great to use. However, more important than the ones you see are the invisible ones that make for an interesting composition as every painter can tell you.

As photographers we mainly deal with what we see while we should be looking out for what's there but that a lot of people just don't notice. The best feel that on a more instintive level. When you look at great photo's a lot of them are great because of a very good composition. Just try to see all the imagenary lines you can find in a photo (or a painting for that matter) and you'll soon see.

Pnina, thanks and you're right. It has become as interesting as revealing.

 

Maria, thanks. You really want me to "go titles" don't you?

 

Tim, if nothing else you've got me laughing. While we have no children our two black labs are called Pierre & Gilles (if you don't happen to know them, they are two famous French photographers). Your no-nonsense answer I like very much.

 

David, not only did we see your statement but it added a lot. Thanks for that.

 

Fred, I guess it's an excerpt from your inaugural speech at the Acadamy of Titelature ;-0

I have to say you and Gordon always seem to be able to tickle me with your elaborate and often eloquent if not erudite statements. Thanks for providing so much fun.

 

In an open debate, be it in person or somewhere like here, you put up a question listen to all arguments and when you find some of them got merit it gets you thinking. I still think putting up a title can be very misleading and preclude the viewer to look upon a photo with an completely open mind. That having said I have to say you've given me some very good arguments to do it anyway. So, who knows maybe I'll give it a try in the knowledge that if I get stuck I know where to go to for advice ;-)

Well this has gotten rather interesting. Seeing all your names however that hardly comes as a surprise. Thanks for all your comments. I've read them all very carefully. It seems it all comes down to the following:

 

"No title and the viewer wanders aimlessly around in circles"

Tim I can understand you having fun thinking up titles but while I don't know you personally I find it hard to believe you really mean that.

 

"From a practical stand point giving your images a title helps others to identify them today and in the future"

Gordon, you're right of course. Uploading them here however doesn't mean I don't index them at home

 

"I'd prefer a photo where the image itself conveyed that sadness, rather than the title doing it"

Fred, that was my whole point. So why put up a title anyway?

 

Maria, "got titles" I like that. It had to come from you ;-)

 

William, thanks for that link

 

All in all this has become food for thought for me. Of course I also suck at thinking up titles ;-)

Open PS, click on the crop tool. Than look just under file where you see you have selcted the crop tool. Right next to it is a little arrow, click on that and you see all kinds of presets. You can even add your own.

not much use anyway an immersed Zippo

you just sound like a spoiled child. Just be glad you can stand in a waiting line to get what YOU want. Besides, if you get worked up about this a coronary is just around the corner. Seen it happen before. Relax man and enjoy the little things in life.

Just found a comment on one of my photo's about the fact that I didn't provide

it with a title or any kind of introductory comment. Conclusion of the

commenter was:

 

"I especially like my interpretation of this one... "

 

That's exactly the reason why I don't like to put up titles anyway. The only

reason I ever started it was because it somehow seemed to attract more

viewers. I have to admit, some of you out there are brilliant at thinking them

up but still, I think if it's not from a journalistic or documentary point of

view photo's are better of with no title at all.

"I seriously do not want film cans beside my name"

 

there is always e-bay

 

now lay down, relax and slowly count back from ten, nine, eight......

 

there aren no cans, there are no cans, there are no cans

Congratulations are in order then. This one you will never forget. Good work, something to be proud of.

Thanks for that great link

before breakfast I only shoot RAW

Since I started using digital I use the battery in my pacemaker as backup. Never ran out since.

 

Since using digital:

-my lungs improved

-my eyes squint more

-my wife sees more of me

-my haemorrhoid condition got worse

-my harddisk got bigger

-my camera's don't last that long

 

So you may have a point. Ain't progress a bitch

a vicious circle is what I would call that. Ellis, it's not so much that I disagree with you but water shortage hasn't been the only problem. Power black-outs for instance that are well documented and will probably prove to be a growing problem. Maybe I'm just a bit more cynical than you (and can vent real easy from over here) but it's the source of the problem that should be adressed. What individuals do is just a droplet on a very hot plate. Besides, as you already worked out you'll end up paying higher taxes for what's in essence good behaviour.

The above statement sums it up pretty well

 

Wanna go green? Stop living

 

"My wife and I try to make decisions based on how we can slow down our individual poisoning of the planet"

In no way do I want to discourage you because it's commendable what you're trying to do (besides, like you said it saves money). But do you really think that it makes a difference when you live in a country that's responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emmisions? Where the price of gas is kept very low. Look at the fuel consumption per head and/or American cars. Driving pick-ups and SUV's has been fashionable now for years. What do you need them for in a city?

Wanna make a difference, then get your politicians into gear. Where I live the council splits up the waste and recycles almost everything. We pay taxes for that and on a larger scale it can make a difference.

 

Back to the question at hand. Although I sometimes miss making fine art prints in my darkroom (the wet variety) my lungs are grateful that I now can do it sitting behind a computer. That's what's really important to me.

 

Also it's not how long a digital camera lasts but just as it is with computers most people always will want bigger and better. I went from 1,2 mp to 3 to 6 to 10 to 12 mp now as have most photographers I know. Did a camera last 20 years before on average now it's more like 20 months.

 

Could be worthwhile to do a survey how many digital camera's the people here on PN have. We may be in for a surprise. (5 for me)