keith_laban

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Why limit your film choice to one film when at any given location the probability is that there will be a whole range of lighting conditions? Velvia and Astia are both useful films, but either used in the wrong situation will inevitably suck. Relying on Photoshop to correct for errors in film choice also sucks.

Constantly changing. Today it's Terry Reid and J.J.Cale.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"what do you call your fine art prints off an Epson?"</i><p>Prints

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>1.5x

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"As some of you have rightly said, my attempts at street photography so far are pretty lame and I need perhaps to find my own 'stories' behind ordinary scenes of ordinary people and find out how to tell those stories with my camera"</i><p>Trevor, it would seem that you are already more than half way there. You seem to have an interest in UK history, fables, the land, the architecture and the people. This is perhaps not the stuff of 'gut wrenching images' but nevertheless it is something that you do seem passionate about. I can't help feeling that to ignore this passion and to seek 'credibility' by attempting to emulate the work of other's in a genre that probably has little in common with your own experience is a retrograde step.<p>Making successful images is essentially the easy bit, the difficult bit is finding the path and direction and having the passion and commitment to follow it.

It's refreshing to read honest self criticism.

 

Gritty street work is not the sum of shooting style and Photoshop. Like anything worthwhile, if it doesn't come from within and with passion there's precious little chance it will come at all.

Ah Yorkshireland, isn�t that where they play kreekit?

Had to log out to see them, but yes, most of the ads I see are from .co.uk sites for this UK resident.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4150069-lg.jpg">

The problem here is that some people, myself included, don't agree with the distinction and therefore refuse to make the declaration. Not all images that are marked as manipulated/unknown are manipulated and I dare say there are more than a few images marked as un-manipulated that are anything but ;-)

When I first put my work on the web I was surprised and somewhat appalled by the number of people who were "borrowing" images. One search revealed that there were 9000+ pages relating to either hotlinking (mostly from photo.net) or just plain stealing my images and these were only the ones that had some sort of credit or link and were therefore searchable. God only knows how many pages were out there that weren't traceable, probably just as well that I'll never know.

 

I have to say that my attitude towards unauthorised web use, hotlinking etc. has softened over the years. These days I've more or less accepted that it's virtually impossible to control where the images appear and I now tend to look upon most instances as just free publicity. The only time I take direct action is if the images are used in a commercial context or if they are using too much of my bandwidth or if I don't like the way in which they are being used. I suppose that if we choose not to opt out of the eCard thingy we are allowing the use. It would be interesting to know how often our images are being used in this context and this information would perhaps help us to determine whether we want in or out.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"The most important "inflection point" is that of the viewer that we address. The rest is mostly wanking"</i><p>And stating the bleeding obvious isn't wanking?

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>�Perhaps the inflexion point is closer to a half frame�</i><p>There are probably as many opinions on this as there are photographers. My own is that the �inflexion point� is closer to 6x45. It is my experience that a 4000dpi drum scan from 6x6 Velvia or Astia will produce more detail than a 16MP DSLR file that has been cropped square, but the difference is not anywhere near as great as you would expect by merely comparing the file sizes. I�d rather produce large prints from the scanned 6x6 film than the cropped and interpolated DSLR file but the results are very different and which is �better� is a matter of opinion and personal preference.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"There is potentially a lot more information recorded on a 35mm slide than in a 16.7 megapixel file from the DSLR. Again, unless I'm missing something"</i><p>Not all pixels are equal.<p>A scan is a copy of an original. I've never copied anything without loosing something.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>The convention of normal viewing distance based on the diagonal of an image and the concept that <i>"normal people"</i> would view an image from the normal viewing distance are as ludicrous as the original question posed in this thread.

I believe that generally, given the difficult circumstances, the moderators here do a damned good job, even those who I've berated in the past.

 

My regret is that several moderators who used to be prolific posters on photo.net now take a back seat and rarely contribute to the forums and that this might be misinterpreted as them being jaded, distant and detached.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Michele, 1024x768 is the most popular screen resolution for viewing web pages. When making jpeg images for web use I find it helps to optimise the image at the resolution most people will be viewing it.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Michele, I'd recommend using the highest resolution that your monitor is capable of for digital darkroom work. I always use 1600x1200 unless I'm working on images for web when I typically use 1024x768. I also use the lower resolution for general computer use.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"Most magazines no longer want film. Film is dead in the western world at this point. The highest end Canon and Nikon digitals make better, finer grained results than any film available at the present time"</i><p>What an extraordinary statement Emily.

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3394463-lg.jpg">

Carl, re "Green Building", good to see the continuation of a great

series.

I'll try that again<p><img

src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4086898-lg.jpg">

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban

Photography</a><p>Where the hell is that pic of stact abs when I need

it most. Oh, what the hell, here's another.<p><img

src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4086898-lg.jpg><div></div>

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>David, many thanks again. I've actually had a chance to review all of my Velvia strips going back many years and I now see that there is indeed variation in the film markings. It seems as though it was pure coincidence that my last few hundred were all yellow. I've also had another chance to review the suspect batch that had orange markings and can now see that the exposure issues were more than likely down to me.<p>

 

Cheers.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Much depends how important wide-angle photography is to you. The V96c has a 37x37mm sensor. This means that a 40mm lens will in terms of field of view effectively = 60mm, 50 = 75, 60 = 90 and an 80 = 120.