t37traveler

<p>Josh - Take care - that stale, recycled airplane air can bring down the hardiest. I've come home sick from more airplane trips than I care to remember. Looking forward to hearing your experiences at PMA in the next newsletter. I was in a local camera shop today and bumped into an HP rep who had attended PMA... one of his most noteworthy impressions - the huge Nikon booth full of tons of consumer grade stuff - point n shoots etc. Also the word that Canon has pulled back release of a new camera model they had planned to release this year. Seems like the economy is reshaping business plans!</p>

<p>Hey Gordon - The "any" in my comment was supposed to have been a "many" - saw it and tried to go back and correct it but the ten minute clock had expired and froze my comment as written, type-os and all, so I just left it.... Sorry about the type-o... and yes, there are occasional aberrations, but when I speak of top-most, I'm talking about the first few rows on the first page. I still have no real idea how photos are sorted into the TRP - I thought I had a theory, but it hasn't proven repetitive... and it doesn't matter. I like the chatroom idea. I've found that when I post for critique only, I very often get one or no replies. Interestingly, I seem to get more comments when posting for ratings and not just critique only (probably a reflection on the traffic difference on those two sites) - and people who have listed me on their interesting persons list tend to comment since they know when I make a new post. Comments do take time, and I generally do not spend a great a deal of time with an excellent photo...but I have spent 20 minutes or more on numerous occasions carefully critiquing and analyzing the "almost great" or "really lacking" photos. I have actually reworked and uploaded a few pics I critiqued to illustrate my points....and I have made wonderful contacts by doing that. It really is frustrating when you want constructive criticism on a photo, and out of the thousands of people on PN, no one offers a suggestion. So, I try to do my part to alleviate that situation.</p>

 

<p>I'm no expert, never been to MP, but I have dragged a D100 all over in damp, salty environments, and my new D700 will shortly get the same treatment. My biggest concern outside of the rain squall is lingering dampness. Make sure that backpack and the foam dividers sit in bright sunlight for a couple of days to dry out when you get back, - or take a layover in New Mexico... : ) I'm thinking about the nasties than can get started in your lenses. I'd also let the lenses and camera sit out in a safe, dry environment when I got home. It's the same thing I do with dive gear after a trip, except I have to wash it all with Salt Away and Stink-Be-gone before I hang it all in the sun (and that includes the regulator).</p>

<p>Forty years ears ago I shot film with a Leica 3G. My father useed a Liece 3M, an Alpa and a Nikon FM2 and a Mamiya medium format for wedding and insurance as well as personal photography. All were great cameras with great lenses. When I went digital, upgrading from an ancient Canon AE-1, I got a Nikon D100 and was delighted with it. On Feb. 23rd I bought a D700 and am ecstatic. The control over the in-camera options for photographs is amazing, and the lack of digital noise at high ISO is phenomenal. It is solid , but not overwhelming (I'm only 5'1" and have small hands). Both Canon and Nikon make top of the line products; you can buy more expensive - a Leica digital is a thing of beauty and about $8K - then come the lenses. Personally I would look at a very high end camera like the Leica as a "fine arts" camera, not something I would take on Safari and bang around in the rough and tumble rush of sports and journalistic shooting. They are compact, solid and wonderful to the touch. I'd love one, but...I haven't won the sweepstakes yet. (Anyone want to buy and carry a spare digital Leica body on the job?) Compared to the Leica class, Nikons and Canons are almost affordable throw-aways. Nikon and Canon lenses are among the best, and within the line-up, some lenses are much better than others. I would take stock of your personal pocket-book, go out and try - event rent a new D700 or Canon equivalent and see which one fits your personal preferences.... and remember that in a few years technology will change and you'll be getting a new body, so unless you want to duplicate lens cost, it would be a very good thing to make the best informed decision you can and keep those lenses. One thing about Nikon is that when they build their lenses, they make them forward-compatible. They know what features are planned and make the lenses "ahead of their time."<br>

I am so glad to see that this thread did not degenerate into a flame-out like the PC versus Mac one did a few weeks ago. </p>

<div></div>

Any kind of doorway that is interesting or unusual<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Funny - all this talk about people with high ratings disappearing from the top ranks - I haven't seen any photos in the top-most ranks that couldn't be justified as belonging there. Personally, I don't think there will be a large shift in the photographers up there; I would anticipate more of a dip in # of ratings being given, and perhaps the type (more sixes, fewer sevens). I think there is a larger "problem" than people circumventing a system to give an honest rating or conniving squadrons of co-conspirators who game the system. Frankly, the fact that you have received a 7 should not negate your giving that person a 7 IF it is clearly deserved. What I see as an equal or greater problem are "cheaters" or others with agendas or lack of understanding who dole out 3/3 ratings for well-composed, tack sharp, properly exposed photos. We all get them and see them given to others if we check the "details" option. It's annoying, but that's life. I am sure you can see that it would be just as easy for someone to pull down the "competion's " rating score as it would to build up their own or buddy's rating. The system cannot be made perfect or foolproof - and it shouldn't have to be.<br>

So, if there is this rat-pack of cheaters and ratings swappers gaming the system, I predict we'll see fewer sevens and more sixes, because there is no time limit on sixes. <br>

Why is this all so important? Why can't we critique and be critiqued, rate and be rated, openly and honestly, without turning the process into a competition? This is a forum, not a freaking photo contest.</p>

 

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Digital photo I recently took of 8"x10" BW print of a photo my Dad shot in the 1960s

with a Swiss Alpa and Tri XPan<div></div>

<p>Remember the old adage about a spoonful of sugar - and think how you would want to hear criticism - make sure that your critique is positively presented. Criticism is "good and bad", better said as positive and negative; never use the word "bad" - it's too general. Walk through his work with him and critique element by element, exposure, dof, contrast, composition, etc. Rather than simply telling him what's wrong, guide him - get him to see what could be improved. He has to learn to be critical of his own work, to be able to pick out the "well-done" from the "needs to improve." Then, most importantly, show him - don't just tell him. Use other photographs as examples, whether from magazines, PN, your work , his work - anywhere. What does he like? Why? Why does it work or not work? Impress the importance of mastering basic good technique first and and not depending on post processing to make an mediocre photo good. Teach him to analyze his own work... and encourage him to take a photo workshop if possible. There is nothing like learning from the real experts.<br>

I have taught underwater photography, both film and digital. My most effective teaching tool was my own "bad" photos. Rather than intimidate or discourage "newbies" with my "expertise" and "great shots" I was able to show them the results of common errors that I, like everyone else has made along the way. So when their photos wound up with too much backscatter or the light falling in the wrong place for example, they knew what caused the problem and how to fix it. It's just another take on the "lead by example" principle, and I found it worked well.</p>

<p>Colton - If I were in that market (boy do I wish I were, but I can't whine - I just got a new D700) I'd check Craigslist frequently, eBay, used camera shops. The economic times are working in your favor when it comes to picking up good high-end stuff being unloaded.</p>

<p>I have a few simple, personal guidelines for myself : 1) Digital manipulation should never become a crutch that replaces skill behind the lens. 2) If it can be done in a darkroom to film, then it is unquestionably "OK" to use it digitally (You're not doing anything new, merely performing a standard adjustment in a new medium; 3) Less is more; "tweak" rather than manipulate ; 4) the purpose of the photo: if it is a documentary, all must be left as originally shot, except for minor enhancements to sharpness, contrast, color saturation etc. to improve the technical quality, which are still totally legit changes. The world of extreme digital alteration and abstracts is digital painting- anything goes in the totally creative end of the digital spectrum, and 5) At the end of the day would I rather look at a photograph and say, "Gee, look I did behind the lens!" or "Gee, look what I did behind the screen of my computer!"</p>

<p>I have used both macs and PCs (PC at work with Vista - great for the work environment). For personal use I will always have a Mac..i t is easier, more intuitive to use, less problem to keep "clean" (people who create viruses tend to do it on macs, and they don't dirty their own swimming pool) and keep running, and for photowork, their monitors are extremely accurate colorwise. And to be honest up front, the first mac I ever used was an Apple IIC - the one with a typewrite looking keyboard, and the multi-colored striped apple for a logo - back when punctuation was coded into what you typed - before the era of Microsoft. Then I had a little mac that was the cube, and people where I worked (a high tech systems engineering company since bought by ITT Corporation ) wondered why someone in the Contracts Dept. needed a computer; that was 1986. I was given an older unit the engineers didn't want any more. Yes, I tend to be pro mac,...but at the turn of the century I had a great Dell laptop provided by my employer...fine for its intended purpose. My first personal laptop was a mac Titanium with a 15" screen and a whole 20G HD. whoooo - a whole 20G (I couldn't afford to upgrade to 40 or 60). It came in the first shipment of those units to Mac Warehouse.....and I loved that thing. The screen went bad, a problem with some early ones, after about 3 or 4 years, and I goat a PowerBook G4 in 2005. Still have it... use it for hours a day.<br>

Dell makes a couple of monitors that are half the price and about as good, color wise as the mac... but as for the machine itself,...I have hauled my 12" PowerBook G4 all over the world for over 3 years (including living on a sailboat in a saltwater environment and taking it on several scuba diving live-aboard trips). Finally, last May, at the end of the 3 year extended warranty I bought (which also includes all the phone support and Apple Store Genius Bar support you need for no additional cost) my hard drive and CD/DVD drive were replaced..... at no cost! The only problem I have ever had was with the old iPhoto (yes, I had over 5000 JPG large/fine pix on it) and the CD became very cranky about burning CDs - sometimes it would; sometimes it wouldn't. The new MacBook Pro is incredible - check out the video on the Apple site - the thing is machined out of a single piece of metal...you can see what this does to the unit's strength and durability. Someone once said that the beauty of a mac is that it works so well to begin with, and that the beauty of a PC is that their SW to make it work works so well. If you don't need tons of games, mega accounting programs, a server, etc., I'd suggest you get a mac, get Photoshop CS4 or Elements, Microsoft Office Suite for Mac (it's totally compatible with any PC communication) and relax and enjoy a great product. If you really like left clicking, something unknown in the mac world, and loading software instead of dragging and dropping, get a PC. I'm not being "a smarty" - people have habits and preferences. (I had a terrible time remembering to left click the mouse when I was using Excel on the PC at work - drove me nuts). But with the new macs, you can have the best of both worlds - they are dual processor. Finally, there is a reason that the majority of professional graphic artists, designers, etc. use the mac. I'd suggest that you visit an Apple Store if possible and get some hands on pro advice. BTW, Best Buy is now selling Apple - and they have an 12 and 18 month @ no interest payment programs if that helps. By the way, I do all of my PS work on my 12" PowerBook G4; I don't have a second monitor... or a second computer.<br>

Whatever your final decision is, make certain it is one that you are comfortable with and that it is need-based. Then you'll be happy. Good luck.</p>

<p>In photoshop you can correct exposure, lighting and white balance to some degree. ( Play with the shadow-highlight, correct, exposure correction; check auto levels and/or auto-color - should do a pretty good and fast job of getting rid of the yellow cast.) As near as I can auto-color correction simply adds a blue filter. If you don't like the auto correction, pump in your own manually. Whatever you get will be less yellow than the original. If your camera does have a fluorescent correction setting, use it. It can only help minimize that yellow haze. Take multiple photos aof the same subject different settings to maximize the potential for success outcome.</p>

<p>In photoshop you can correct exposure, lighting and white balance to some degree. ( Play with the shadow-highlight, correct, exposure correction; check auto levels and/or auto-color - should do a pretty good and fast job of getting rid of the yellow cast.) As near as I can auto-color correction simply adds a blue filter. If you don't like the auto correction, pump in your own manually. Whatever you get will be less yellow than the original. If your camera does have a fluorescent correction setting, use it. It can only help minimize that yellow haze. Take multiple photos aof the same subject different settings to maximize the potential for success outcome.</p>

<p>In photoshop you can correct exposure, lighting and white balance to some degree. ( Play with the shadow-highlight, correct, exposure correction; check auto levels and/or auto-color - should do a pretty good and fast job of getting rid of the yellow cast.) As near as I can auto-color correction simply adds a blue filter. If you don't like the auto correction, pump in your own manually. Whatever you get will be less yellow than the original. If your camera does have a fluorescent correction setting, use it. It can only help minimize that yellow haze. Take multiple photos aof the same subject different settings to maximize the potential for success outcome.</p>

<p>Ritz filed for bankruptcy protection, not just bankryptcy; maybe if they get rid of their Boaters World Stores, and hire more personnel who really know photography, not just point and shoot model #s and prices, they will recover. I personally hope so. On the not so bright side, they owe Nikon over $26M, Canon over $13M and Fuji over $8M. I'd say this situation is not an overnight surprise to uppermanagement.</p>

<p>Michael<br>

The self-publishing industry, and many other publishers also, rely on laser printer technology, thus what you get is really a one-off copy. The transition from RGB to CMYK (transition from light to pigment for color rendition) is likely to yield results that will probably not match what you see on your monitor. The problem can start with your monitor's color balance. Then there is the issue of printer fatigue, ink levels, etc. Usually the print house catches obvious problems, but subtle color-match problems may not be noticed. The other publishing technique, off-set printing, uses plates of individual colors. Obviously this is very costly and time-consuming and used only by large publishers for expensive coffee table type books. My advice would be to order a beta version of your book with a soft cover, etc. to minimize cost. If you see a consistent color problem, then you can go back into your photos, adjust that color in color balance or hue or whatever and reprint. If you have a good photo quality laser printer at home you could do your own test runs and get a pretty good idea whether or not you have a "translation" problem in going from RGB on your monitor to CMYK on your printer. </p>

<p>I use VioVio and have had four books published there. They are truly a class act - a small business that cares. Their quality, price, personal service, and layout options, cover options, etc are fantastic. The book design is web-based, so you don't have to download any SW, or you can design your own out of iPhoto or whatever and upload it as a pdf file. Check out them out at www.viovio.com. To see their book designer option and how it works, click on the orange tab that says "Start Your Photo" at the right end of the menu bar on their home page. On the next page, you can see the book making options. Book Designer is a multi-option drag and drop that is very easy to use and to see the layout as you go. Book Machine is an older lay out program - not nearly as slick as Designer and does not have all the options and visibility into what you're creating as you create it, but it is want some people prefer. <br>

Also, VioVio offers 500 meg free space for a photo gallery and sub-galleries; there is the option to hide any gallery from public access. So if you want to play with the design options with your own photos, create a free gallery and upload a few pics. Also, as you build your book there is a little icon on the left that allows you to check the price as you go so there won't be any big surprises at the end! It's really slick. I personally hate downloading someone else's SW and using up my HD space for something I won't use frequently. Their photo sharing feature is also excellent.<br>

I really highly recommend them. Seriously, check them out at www.viovio.com. I'd be interested to know what you think and how it all works out for you. I'm working on another book now, but the schedule has been delayed by all the time I spend wandering around PN! : )</p>

 

<p>Oops- sorry I doubled posted the above and couldn't remove the duplicate, so I erased the contents of the second one and replaced them with this explanation so my name wouldn't identify a non-existent post.</p>

<p>Ratings are over-rated.... and they should never, ever be taken personally any more than a grade in a creative writing class should be taken personally. Anything creative is subject to the bias of subjectivity. Of course, we all want to see our work affirmed and appreciated by others. However, if that is most important, then one should stick to sharing photos with close family and friends. Don't misunderstand me. <br>

Many people are here to learn; ratings alone can help you learn, but they are not the best way. Constructive criticism and commentary, with or without ratings, is the best. I go back and look at a photo that has been given double 3s and try to see what is below average, and wish that the rater had taken a moment to tell me what he found to be sub-par. And yes, it did annoy me that there was no comment - I would have like to have known what that person saw or didn't see.<br>

I often wonder why the same photo gets a single 3/3 and mulitple 6/6 or 7/7 as has happened to me numerous times. I think the answer is two-fold: 1) it is very true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and 2) many times people instinctively rate based on personal tastes and forget to be objective. Human nature having the diversity that it does, there are probably instances of "pay backs" both high and low. No system is perfect. I do think it would be helpful if PN posted some very general "rating guidelines" as to what to consider. I think that would be helpful to newcomers especially as it would, hopefully, make them stop and analyze before hitting the number keys. There is nothing on the "rate photos" feature that even tells the rater what the ratings mean. It took me a little while to learn the ins and outs of the site. When I did figure it out, I went back and reviewed ratings I had given, realized I done a few photos some injustice, and revised them. I also think that it is easy to forget that 7 = excellent, not perfect, and that 3 = below average, not bad.<br>

PN is a forum where a group of people who share a mutual interest come to share and learn and teach (via critique and comment). There is not one among us who cannot learn something from someone else on this net at some time. Yes, there are some masters and experts who have much more to teach than to learn, but we are mostly here to share.<br>

If you primarily want to collect good ratings, figure out what appeals most to the masses, limit your posted creations open for rating to those falling within those boundaries, and be happy. There is nothing wrong with that. You can post other work "for critique only" and not worry about rating injustice.<br>

I would also say in closing that I agree that a low rating (3/3) should require a critique in order to be uploaded to the ratings....BUT ... I think that would create another conundrum... photos either not being rated or being given a just a slightly high rating to avoid having to write a critique. Many times we get on the rate photos treadmill and just get into a rut or we feel rushed and don't have time to write an explanation. So I have come full circle to a simple statement from the beginning of my comment, "No system is perfect." Let's enjoy what we have while we work to make it better by being honest and fair in our ratings and taking the time and having the courage to explain the "bad" in as much detail as we praise the "good." </p>

<p> </p>