allenspencer

Or if it's even produced anymore?

 

I've found an old Kodak Brownie Junior Six-20, and it's in amazing working condition. I've seen that other

photographers have found ways of using them. Are there other kinds of film they can take? How would you go about

developing it?

I've just gotten Edward Weston & Tina Madotti: The Mexico Years. And the print

of Pepper #30 is a mirror image of all other prints of it that I've seen. Has

anyone else seen this?

 

Just thought it was odd.

Faulty or hot pixel. What causes it? Can it be fixed or is my camera permanently like this?

Here it is, look very closely near the middle of the image.

When I use my camera in darker situations, a small, bright red, dot shows up on

the screen, and appears in the photos. It isn't visible unless you're looking

for it or just happen to zoom-in where it is, but I'm still wondering why it's

there. Any ideas?

It's of the film-maker Werner Herzog, and it captures him perfectly.

 

http://www.wildblueyonder.wernerherzog.com/pics/midres/wh_print.jpg

Tim nailed it.

 

Emre, Michael, all my point is, is that if photos that are considered great (None of the "Well who says they're great?!?" crap.), were taken by amateur photographers, would the photos still be seen as great?

I'm thinking something along the lines of the photographer being extremely pretentious, "My work is amazing, you don't get it.", and COTR being praised with sarcasm? Maybe?

3/7? 5/7? 7/7?

 

http://caraphillips.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/weston_pepper_number30.jpg

 

http://www.picture-box.com/Resources/Edward-Weston.jpg

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/00KJMo-35455884.jpg

 

http://www.macobo.com/essays/eimages/Excusado.jpg

 

http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/weston.eroded.jpg

 

http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/images/2007/06/02/wspoonwestoncharis_2.jpg

 

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/b/b2/300px-Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg

 

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/adamslargemoonrise.jpg

 

Think very deeply on this, and answer honestly. It's a good way to determine which you value more; the photograph, or the photographer.

I mainly go by the amount of potential I see in the photograph. If the

photographer is obviously talented, but the images are turning out mediocre, I

tend to rate them highly anyway, then make suggestions, just to try and get

them going, sort of an emotional boost.

 

When I rate photographs badly, it's when the photograph is just so idiotically

a cliche, it almost hurts to look at (Badly focused close ups of flowers,

typical sunsets, pretentious self portraits, etc.) I can only remember using

the extreme 1/7 rating a few times, I try to go to at least 3/7.

Or do people really think it's brilliant? It really makes me wonder how, that,

can be so highly praised and rated.

So, Jay, who's image would it be?

 

Is Stroszeck Werner Herzog's film or Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein's?

I really think some of you are taking my question too seriously. I'm not questioning the legal issue, I understand that as long as I have their permission, it's fine; and I'm not really working with strangers. I'm not totally blind and void on this whole subject, I do know some things.

 

I'm asking from the philosophical standpoint to see what others think of the issue.

This isn't directed at all of you, but I'm just going to say that it's getting annoying when my words are twisted to make me sound like some childish armature. I wouldn't just hand the camera to someone and ask them to take the photograph for me, some things I'm working on require different people to take photographs, therefore getting multiple viewpoints.

For example, the director of a film is hardly ever the one who holds the

camera. But it is still his/her film.

 

So, with photography, what if I were to give the camera to someone else and

direct them what to shoot; would I still be the photographer?

I apologise if all of my "Best" and "Favorite" posts are getting annoying. I'm just very new to all of this and want to start conversation. I'll try to make more interesting posts in the future.

I saw two people. I hate how I only catch my typos after I've posted the message.

Mine: Brief Blue. I was sitting in class with my camera, and say two people

talking across the room. I zoomed in as close as I could get, turned off the

flash, and took the picture. It turned out somewhat blurred from the zoom, but

I see it as my best photograph by far.<div></div>

That's if you're only in it for the aesthetics. The greatness of the image is the aesthetics, content, and any underlying meaning combined. As well as the ability to respect/understand something even though you don't exactly enjoy it.

 

Just as I've recently come to the conclusion that Schneider is not that great of a photographer, but regardless, I enjoy her work. And though I find much of Weston's and Soth's work boring, I respect it for its greatness and beauty.

Thanks Mike for fixing the links. And I did an extremely bad job of explaining my point. By powerful I don't mean artistically important, fashionably composed, etc, but an image that really captures something deeply human, I agree with Weston hugely on not allowing the beauty of a photograph to be obstructed by artisitc effect.

 

Just go to Soth's website, and imagine the same photographs taken by some teenager for MySpace or Facebook. Although the image would have the same content, there would be clear difference in it.

That quality in the work of great photographers who can make such a "normal"

image powerful. Alec Soth for example:

 

http://bp0.blogger.com/_4reUPxWXN3A/RqI4P0ItqWI/AAAAAAAAAnk/XNJ0d4nfen0/s1600-h/fashion005.jpg

 

http://www.mocp.org/exhibitions/uploads/SothEx.jpg

 

http://i.gagosian.com/files/a84da01d.jpg

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/liverpool/exhibitions/centreofthecreativeuniverse/images/alecsoth_lauraandstevelive_.jpg

 

And some of Weston's work:

 

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jx9n/photos/photography/Edward%20Weston/102.jpg

 

http://www.huntington.org/LibraryDiv/JuniperSierraNev37.jpg

 

Just the ability to see common things (Which, if most were to take a photo of,

would turn out like more of a "just for laughs" or "Ooh that's neat." MySpace

pic.) And turn it into photographic beauty.

 

A great comparison:

Alec Soth...

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2006/12/08/alecsoth92834.jpg

 

And the not so great:

Randomly searched "Wedding pic bride." of Google...

http://www.laphotopro.com/images-index/photojournalism-wedding-bride-dance-burbank.jpg

 

Though the second is more "Capturing the moment." than the first, the first

still has a far more poetic quality.

FastStone is perfect, thank you all.

Thanks for the recommendations, but Irfanview is terrible. At first, the resized image looks great. But with the slightest zoom-in or enlargement, the image looks so mega-pixelish that it could have been taken on webcam. And I'm not even making them that much smaller, I'm just getting them to 3MB so they'll fit on this site.

 

I'll try PowerToy.

Some of my pictures are too big to upload here, I need a good free software to

shrink them down.

Alright, thanks for the responses.