mikelgondra

As some other responses said, both cities are brilliant and wonderful for a photographer and you could enjoy strong

sides of each. Let me give you some ideas. I have been in London (both working in the city and visiting it as a tourist)

around 20 times and more than double in Madrid (obviously I am closest to Madrid, I live in Bilbao, north of Spain,

Basque Country).

Madrid is, of course, more "latin", warmest city, friendly people, better weather than London (but be careful in some

months like June-July-August when could be extremely hot and discomfortable in the street at noon), Museums are

very big and well known (not only Prado, but Thyssen-Bornemisza is fantastic too and other smaller museums); in

these very big cities I would recommend trying to find the "small" individual places, not only the 30 or 40 places

underlined in all tourist guides but those 200 or 300 places that you find simply walking around the city, both in the

down town and also in other interesting areas. If you spend more than 3-4 days in the city, I would recommend to

stay one or two days in some small villages around Madrid, but going up to the "Sierras " around the city (that means

some mountain chains mostly oriented North of Madrid, but also to other directions). Please, do not discuss that

gastronomy quality in Madrid is much better than in London, except if you are asking for a nice beer.

London is another of my very favourite cities: when I think about "british style" surely I am mostly thinking about some

images of London: the river and Administration (City Hall, Parliament Houses, Military buildings,...) give a nice

"formal" atmosphere to the city, but, on the other side, going walking from very different areas like Portobello or

Candem Town (full of pretty pubs and indian/asian restaurants), Hyde Park, Oxford/Regent streets, Thames bit

bridges area. For other europeans, like us from Bilbao, to visit London is an opportunity to enjoy an english Football

stadium, that is an incredible experience for a photographer if you like sports and you "live" them intensively.

I love London and Me encanta Madrid so you decide on yourself. Take your camera, walk, shoot and enjoy. Good

Luck. Ikusi arte (see you in basque language). Josemi Gondra

<p>I´m not sure, but I took my first photo when I was around 14. The camera was one small and thin. You could hardly view what you were taken and the negatives were really small, around 1/3 square inch. I was in a short holiday period in a small village close to the mountains and I shot those happy days with friends and some snow. I keep the images somewhere in my files - also the negatives, like microfilms - but the resolution is horrible enough that I hardly recognize myself. B and W, of course.</p>

Photography and painting influences - sons of same art<div></div>

Aupa Athletic<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Two friends, the beginning of a nice day<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

A tree. Individual, unique, powerful, usually alone. A classical subject to

shoot. Please show us your tree - show us your inside.<div></div>

<p>It is a nice opportunity and, probably, one of the best things of PN, that is ! to participate and knowing other people ideas. I agree with Luca, we are now seeing too much soft retouch and many people would prefer to see more photo images.<br>

My suggested section would be: <strong>No Retouch</strong> (that is, images as were taken, only modified in size in order to be OK to charge in PN). I know that is people in favour and others could consider it ridiculous in the 21st century, but I am sure we could practise our very primitive resources and see what are the results.<br>

We are here to enjoy and we are here to learn, both, so I am sure we will be satisfied with more ideas and subjects suggested in PN and will test what is the users acceptance. It is very easy to check because we see participation and we read or see opinions (sometimes only in images !).<br>

Ikusi arte. Josemi Gondra.</p>

<p> </p>

<div></div>

Hi, Alan and everybody in the debate. I think it is a question or giving a title or not. It is true that in this art called "photography" there are many times that images are no titled, "Untitled" (looks poor), and, in those cases, perhaps other people, because of their feeling, or critics, or I do not know who will put a title to the image and perhaps that title will be permanently fixed to the image if it is successful or not.

 

When I am taking a look at a photo, if the author put a title, that is better; I will have the opportunity to know some more information about the photo FROM the origin: perhaps what city that street was shooted, what country that boy lives in, what sea is so furious, what mountain the author wants to keep, why that girl is smiling, and so on. Another question is that many photographers do not want to put titles to their photos because making titles is another "art" (closer to literature, not to photography) and they feel good and confortable at photography art but, sometimes, they do not feel so good at making titles. It is just a question of feeling. From my part, I always prefer the title and comments from the original author, because both in the photo and in title he/she will be giving something from his inside. Titles made from other people could be "external" to the image and, so, subject to many different interpretations.

 

Please, photographers, PUT TITLES, GIVE INFORMATION, PUT COMMENTS: this will reinforce and will be valued by the audience in most of the cases. At least I will give thanks any time I am reading a title and, in many cases, that could be as good as the photo-image itself. I go.

Hi, Jose Miguel, this is Jose Miguel and I am 47, so we are very close in the space-time universe. I have been taking photos during more than 30 years but let´s say I am addict since 4-5 years ago. Hope my responses could be useful for your learning process - that is all life - :

a) Not only the way you see things around you (that will give information on your "internal" universe) but do not forget we are also conditioned but space. A boy or man that lives close to Niagara falls will have the possibility to take some amazing water images not available in other places. A girl that is the daughter of an alpinist will probably have a different eye for mountain images. And so on. In the global world today you can travel and shoot everything but the most close personal views of many photographers are usually a couple of miles from their residences.

b) Digital - or not digital - photography is not only taking and editing; I think you forget one of the most important thing in the sometimes very quick process that is COMPOSING. When you shoot your camera, some times very quick some times not, depending on the composing time, you are always composing an image before: may be with people or not, landscape, objects, light, colours, and ta, ta, ta...but COMPOSITION of the different elements in the vision of your eye and your camera is the most important process. And the way how and what and when and W....you compose may identify yourself as an individual characteristics composer (or author). Another thing is taking (here the material media are quite basic) and editing (again high technology is taking part in the process). But from my point of view COMPOSITION is the mother of the lamb.

c) There are subjective things, but there are other objective ones: good color contrast, dynamic images, good black & white compositions, opportunity pictures well taken; si vemos que las imagenes de ciertos fotografos salen en diferentes revistas, publicaciones, son premiadas, gustan a muchos, en general podremos calificarlas de buenas. Luego están "otras" sensibilidades que siempre existen y que tienen gustos más extremos y que pueden apreciar mejor fotos especiales como, no sé, el parto de un potrillo, una macro de un mosquito, una lágrima en primer plano. José Miguel, lo que está claro es que hay que buscar esos momentos "mágicos" de nuestro entorno y, entonces, en el momento oportuno (y con la luz, el enfoque, el ángulo, bla, bla,...), disparar y editar (después). Te he respondido la mayoría en ingles pues creo que es mas comodo para el resto de personas en el foro. The end in spanish just to share a couple of words and do some marketing of mother language. See you, Jose Miguel (Ikusi arte - this is basque "see you"). Hasta la vista.

<div></div>

You can always find good contrats or good complementary colors when

going outside. In this case, I did not need to find a lot of light or pointing

my camera up but in the floor I took this image of a spider web and

some leaves in attracting colors.<div></div>

CANNION REPRODUCTION IN ZUMAIA, GIPUZKOA, BASQUE

COUNTRY - NORTH OF SPAIN.<div></div>

Walter, I mainly agree with the most simple and quick responses of Victor and Ellis: everything you make as new is basically new for everybody and perhaps someone could appreciate new details in old images, it is something completely subjective.

I think that photography is basically to capture moments of life and you could capture other people - or yourself-, animals, landscapes, planets, particles, microscopic elements or whatever the technology does possible.

On the other hand, photography is a science of light, and anytime you are shooting, you are capturing light, colors, intensities, transparency, opacity, texture and bla, bla, bla.. Here you could also use post-production that technology gives us more possibilities every year and in this aspect I think that photography is converging with painting, in the sense that you are changing and giving different color areas in your shot, exactly as an artist does. Anyway, many good photographs look like canvas painting.