tonmestrom

David, can just tell you from my own experience. I did go to a acadamy of fine arts to study photography. Not with the intent to eventually make a living out of it but because I wanted to become better at what I'd found to be a great hobby i.e. way to express myself. I learned a lot of useful things there like fine art printing, how to setup lighting equipment and use it to its full potential, making good compositions, something which becomes second nature if you're limited to the use of just your standard lens, one film and have to print your whole negative for about two years. We were also were required to build our own pin hole camera and use it a lot which really teaches you what light really is and does (love it ever since). And I can go, but noticed something? These are all technical skills which I still find helpful every day. What they can't teach you tough at any acadamy I know of is to become a great photographer because that takes creativity and that's either in your genes and can be developed or you'll never get it.

Working with some of the best teachers around and being exposed to some of the most talented photographers there are around it mostly gave me a great sense of modesty. Because there is still so much to learn.

Yes it's useful and I would recommend it to anyone who asks. It's also a lot of fun if you can cope with being broken down to the ground on a regular basis. But there are no guarantees.

Chris, don't apologise. So long as people as you can be found in any community, let alone this one, there is nothing to complain about. I just checked out your portfolio. Babysteps, my ass. You've got some great photo's there. Love you're b&w. Anyway, thanks from the guy that started this argument. Regards, Ton

when I started out at the acadamy we were allowed only to use the standard lens (50 mm or 80/90 for medium-format) and print the full negative. We had to do that for two years. It taught me to compose my photo's very carefully which meant I developed a new way of looking at things which I never lost since. I think because of that I learned to make much better photo's. Nowadays I have a lot of lenses but I still use the standard ones the most because really there is hardly a subject that you can't photograph perfectly. Zoom lenses tend to make you less carefull and as a general rule ther are of a lesser quality or you have to be prepared to invest a great deal of money.

I'm interested in buying one. Does that forklift come with the lens?

(maybe we've all got too much time on our hands?)

it's what we all do in the beginning, exploring new possibilities that software provides us with; eventually we grow out of it (if we have any sense that is}. So what else is new?

nothing much to add here, but if you want to try b&w film the best you can try is Kodak Tri-X film Iso 400. It's still one of the most forgiving films there is. For myself I prefer Ilford's Delta 100 which is arguably the best ever made, but for top results it needs a very good lens and an extremely accurate devolpment.

Thank you all people. Nick I just took your advice and feel completely in Zen now with a beer in my hand and my footsies on my desk.

Go forth and comment some more!

fact of the matter is, you're all right. Point is tough you can't fault anybody if the give an honest comment and it's always a pleasure getting one.

Thanks folks for your comment but to just answer some of your comments: Julie you're right, it's a whole lot easier to praise a photo but for me it's more important I get an honest one, even if it's negative. Fredrik, we seem to agree on the rating but its not my intention to get rid of it. A lot of people like it. But you're right it doesn't take that long to write a few lines that was my whole point.

Rob, you're spot on in your comment. Just the other day I got an e-mail from a member who told me, roughly translated, what a ignorant piece of .... I am. Funny thing is I'd given her a rather positive feedback. But should that put you off? I think the people who value feedback form a much larger group. Besides I'm old and wise enough to ignore a reaction like that.

It's probably a deja vu question for most of you but I'm a little

diasappointed by the lack of (substantiated)critiques on a lot of photo's (not

including my own here). That poses the question if most people don't dare,

don't know how to or just can't be bothered. For myself I got some very nice

reactions of some very nice people while trying to give substantiated

feedback. The fact remains however that a lot of people take the trouble to

post their images and don't get any comments. Rating is one thing but a

written feedback, whether positive or nagative, really can give insight. Any

ideas on how to get those raters going on writing comments?

If you value your camera the don't do it yourself

forget ratings, they are utterly useless anyway. A more interesting question would be: how many people take the trouble to write comments/critiques, let alone honest and meaningfull ones.

The answer isn't all that hard, because here really the less is more principle applies. If you exhibit in an art gallery you're limited in the images you can mount and put on the wall. That means making some hard choices. So apply the same principle here for yourself. Of course it's nearly impossible to give a hard number, but just a question: how many portfolio's you can find that consist of 50 excellent and meaningfull images? We should all be more critical on our own work. So in my opnion a limit of about 40-50 images would be perfect.

Excellence is not a matter of quantity but of quality.

altough I also rated some pictures (mostly while backing up) it's mostly a futile task because, how do you rate a creative process? In reality you can't. The fact of the matter is, we all want a written feedback on our pictures whether it's positive or negative altough that should always go along with a factual argumentation. Point is that a lot of people don't know how to do that (or don't dare).

Don't get to excited about ratings because they don't tell you anything. Let's make a start an give honest and substantiated critiques on those pictures that you like or dislike and especcialy for those people who ask for help. I for one intend to...

Why don't you join me.....

Dear Nancy,

the amount of megapixels is not all that important. What's really important is the quality of your lens. Given your description maybe a bridgecamera would be best and there are some really good ones out there. The Fujifilm F6500, the Nikon E8700 (if you can still find one) and so on are just fine. Quit reliable information can be found on www.megapixel.net

However, if you do weddings use your Canon as a backup.

Hope this is somewhat helpful

 

with kind regards,

 

Ton Mestrom

The Netherlands