freewolf

<p>For corroboration of a plant identification, <a href="http://www.botany.com">http://www.botany.com</a> can be very helpful.</p>

<p>Eric, I've found a site that is very helpful in identifying many plants, animals, and insects -- <a href="http://pick4.pick.uga.edu/">http://pick4.pick.uga.edu/</a> . You basically perform a checklist based on the characteristics and it helps narrow down the taxonomic identification for you. Between this site and google, I've been able to identify a number of plants and insects. Often I'll be able to narrow down to a specific genus, then google that genus to get down to species and corroborate my identification.</p>

<p>Thanks for clearing up the "satire" aspect, but let's say such a poster was successfully used, in whatever manner, to beat Obama in the campaign -- what then? I've no real experience with copyright law and fair use, so I'm just curious...</p>

<p>In the Fresh Air interview aired February 26 Fairley was asked in such a situation as his, what kind of credit should the photographer get? His answer was basically that this should be up to the artist [as opposed to the photographer], based on "where they are in their careers". I hope there isn't case law to support this tripe.</p>

<p>In Fairley's January 09 interview on Fresh Air, he states that his intention with such street art is to "make people question propaganda". Typical truncation of the definiton of propaganda -- it's always the other guys doing it. Typically enough, NPR's treatment afforded Fairley a little more than 24 minutes of air time, while the AP's response was limited to an exerpt from their formal statement lasting under 2 minutes. Nope, Fairley isn't engaged in propaganda... Yes, Matt, more than enough hypocrisy to go around.</p>

<p>Matt, thanks for sharing the links. One thing I found interesting was the "Changing the Dominant Paradigm" interview with Fairley. In it he claims that he was inspired to capture in "his" image the authenticity and integrity of Obama. He says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Young people and artists especially respond to authenticity, and whether he's [Obama] just very good at seeming authentic or whether he's really authentic, I think he has a lot of us convinced."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Authenticity? Integrity? One is compelled to wonder just what paradigm(s) Mr. Fairley is trying to change... Perhaps the paradigm of authenticity should give way to that of <em>seeming</em> authenticity, as evidenced by his own lack of the former? Perhaps the paradigm of "fair use" should be overturned by tortuous arguments about changing the meaning of the original artist's image? This is all hair-splitting and disingenuous rot -- his pants should be sued off of him.</p>

<p>Let's imagine a scenario [i'm not espousing or denigrating any political view here, just illustrating a point] -- let's say some young street art entrepeneur takes "Fairley's" image, superimposes a hammer and sickle on Obama's lapel (or edits a big spliff into his mouth and gives him a little redeye) and substitutes the letter "D" for the letter "H" in the caption, and makes a mint selling posters and t-shirts thereof? Would Fairley wish to argue that his image had been illegally misappropriated and misused? Would he, by his own standards, have a valid argument for recompense? Or does his "ends justifies the means" attitude only extend to ends with which he agrees? I'd be curious to know.</p>

<p>If any judge could agree with Fairley's assertion that transforming the "meaning" of the likeness in such a way constitutes fair use, all photographers' works are fair game. That's an unsettling thought to me.</p>

<p>I'll add to what Sam has said by emphasizing the flipside of the depth-of-field coin... Using Aperture Priority, you also control foreground and background focus/blur to minimize visual distraction from your subject. When birds are stationary, they do tend to be found in scenes containing a lot of potentially distracting elements (trees, shorelines, etc.), so keeping your DOF shallow enough to separate the bird from the visual confusion can be important. Ultimately it all depends on what effect you're trying to achieve in any given shot.</p>

<p>Of course, with practice you'd eventually find it better to stay with Manual and set aperture and shutter speed yourself based on the specific conditions of each shot.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Josh, there are a number of good books on digital color management out there. I just finished one entitled Color Pipeline (Ted Dillard, 2009, Lark Books) that explains it all in fairly good detail, and explains it all in the context of workflow as well. </p>

<p>For under $1500 I got a Sony a350, 18-70 kit lens, Sony 75-300, Tokina 19-35, grip strap, Sony bag w/extra lithium battery, fancy-shmancy sling bag, and a couple of filters, and some lens cleaning goodies. All pics on my photo.net page were taken with it. I can't vouch for the quality of the photographer :) but picture quality is as good as anything else for the money. It is the most pixel's/dollar you can currently get, if that's of any importance to you. Also, all Konica-Minolta (and third-party) a-mount lenses will work with it; and with in-camera stabilization, you'll generally pay a bit less for lenses down the road. Good luck with whatever you buy! If it snaps, it's good.</p>

<p>Shawn, maybe you can forward the links I emailed you to Michael -- I didn't save them. </p>

<p>Michael, my wife was a very active psychologist at South Mississippi Regional Center with expertise in developmental delay/retardation and mental illness issues, assisting children to adults. She still has contacts there and may be able to get some info on the subject... I'll post back here if/when I can find anything on this. Best of luck!</p>

<p>Glad to help. I'll email you more urls as I find them, so as not to tie up bandwidth in this thread. I've also posted links to this page in a couple of other forums in hopes some might respond.</p>

<p>From ERIC.ed.gov (in case you happen to overlook it)</p>

<p><a href="http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1f/b0/35.pdf">http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1f/b0/35.pdf</a></p>

<p>Perhaps the following may give us ALL a bit of perspective. It's WAY off-topic, but perhaps that's the point. Somebody is making undeniably good use of his time on PN, and I feel a bit humbled...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00SYzS">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00SYzS</a></p>

<p>Shawn, what an excellent undertaking! I can't offer any help other than to say that a quick google search on "photography disabled" turns up a lot of resources. It's relatively easy to wade through all the "pictures of disabled people" links to find the useful ones. If you want any help searching this stuff, holler at me. In any event, great idea -- keep it up!</p>

<p>Lex, you better stay perpendicular... There seems to be a need for a designated driver here.</p>

<p>I, for one, will thank Mr. Perpendicularity for throwing a little light(ness) on the subject!</p>

<p>Jamie, I'll have to differ with you here, or at least clear the air a bit for you. No discipline of study or endeavor can be undertaken without a set of concepts and related terminology with which to consider and discuss them. The jargon, in this sense, is not the problem, it's the language we've got at our disposal. However, this language (like any other) can be used in many ways, some more effective and truly informative than others. In their use of this language, there are some who are to the "art world" what Madison Avenue shucksters are to an informed consumer public. Some, but not all.</p>

<p>Also, I would personally not lump Fred in with Luis G -- Fred offered an informed and I think well-considered rebuttal to your premise, and did cause me to at least consider the topic and my response to it more carefully. I've found he's good at that, and I continue to thank him for it. Luis did little more than call names. If you fail to recognize the difference, you may lose a lot of valuable learning opportunities on this site.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis G: You might try considering the possibility that some of us are able to dislike this particular style, find it ridiculous and pretentious, or what have you, without being the least bit ignorant of what's inside the little jargon-protected world you describe. I've been intimately involved in the arts creatively, socially, and scholastically, for over forty years, and I'm well-educated in facets of art ranging from creativity and aesthetics to cognition and neurobiology, from music to the plastic/visual arts. I may not know diddly-squat about photography and its particular history, but I can tell you that most of the language and concepts that photography critics and commentators use have been around since long before you or cameras were even a twinkle in your respective daddys' eyes. That language can be used very effectively to communicate what are often complex and/or ephemeral ideas. However, one cannot be in the arts long without being subjected to the fluffy, gushing, and fawning kind of prose style that some of us find hard to palate.<br>

The merits of the technical jargon used in discussing particular concepts of art, creative methodology, subjectivism, objectivism, cognition, etc., are not being argued here (I might add that the vast majority of these concepts are not unique to photography alone). I don't believe that these concepts are at all trivial, and they certainly merit both general discussion and treatment as they apply to a given artist. What IS being argued is the observation, by some of us, that such topics can be addressed more effectively and informatively without trivializing them with this particular "artsy fartsy" prose style. <br>

To assume that disagreement with your position must imply ignorance tells us little to nothing about those with whom you argue (the logical flaws in your conclusion are glaring), but says volumes about your own position. As far as that goes, I'll let it speak for itself.</p>

<p>Hi, Fred: Thanks for understanding... and thanks for pointing out that these were very small examples. I retract just enough of my knee-jerk response to apologize for taking them entirely out of context.</p>

<p>I have no problem with the discussion regarding "dessicated formalism" vs. "anecdotal legacy", and find a lot of value in considering such subjects quite seriously. I was simply pointing out that a statement such as "<em>So to completely divorce her work from her personal trajectory would be, at best, capricious" </em>is superfluous in that the same can truly be said of ANY creative artist -- it's a general truism, in my mind, that doesn't add to my understanding of the artist or her work. Perhaps what is obvious to me may not be as obvious to others, though, in which case I can admit to being somewhat off the mark.</p>

<p>Regarding the Shore commentary, I neither intended any putdown of Brownie users nor any reference (positive or negative) to the artist's synthesis of archetypal and personal. I actually find that subject fascinating (and I also wouldn't mind one bit owning a Brownie). However, I think the artist is hardly unique in having captured a "hitherto unarticulated" vision by jumping in the car, going for a ride, and snapping some great, expressive shots. I find it a superfluous statement in itself, whether it refers to synthesis, expression, composition, or whether the photographer took his shots from the roof of his station wagon. Everything every one of us does is hitherto unarticulated, when it gets right down to it.</p>

<p>In short, both of my arguments were very general in nature, as I think the OP's intended point was.</p>

<p>All of this being said, I think you'll agree that it wouldn't take long for either of us to find some in-context examples of the phenomenon to which the OP refers, because the entire world of "art" has generated and thrived on plenty of fluff for literally centuries, and separating it from informative discussion can sometimes be terribly tedious. While I know my argument above grossly caricatures a certain mindset that I've encountered repeatedly in the art/music world, I would by no means wish to imply that all flowery speech is unnecessary, nor that all who went to college, drink wine, and comment on things artistic are pretentious snobs (in which case I would be guilty as well!).</p>

<p>And sometimes, Fred, I find myself overcompensating for having been labeled sensitive all my life! No shame in sensitivity in my eyes... but bear in mind that when I'm not hanging out with musicians and artists, I'm usually spending time with a bunch of rednecks who love to catch fish, swing hammers, and perspire a lot. It sort of tempers my artsiness a bit, which is generally fine with me. </p>

<p>Pithy, no?</p>

<p>Cheers, once again!</p>

<p>It didn't take me long to determine the relative educational value of the anonymous ratings system... all I had to do was get a 7/7 and a 3/3 on the same photo (for which I would have been very generous giving myself a 2/2). </p>

<p>Still and all, without the system, I would not have received some very helpful critique and even a few compliments from folks who actually take the time and attention to do so. If nothing else, the rating system is certainly good for generating some top-notch entertainment in these forums, while simultaneously demonstrating that there really IS some value to image manipulation after all!</p>

<p>Cheers to all!</p>

<p>Jamie, I'm new to photography, but have been involved in the arts for over forty years, and one thing I've learned is that to be truly accepted into the "artsy-fartsy" sector of the community, one must dress up one's observations on this or that particular work with as much superlative, schmaltzy dreck as possible. Doing so makes one appear <em>knowledgeable, refined, </em>and <em>sophisticated</em>, and failing to do so causes one's cohorts to gasp in horror at your lack of perception and depth and spew cracker and cheese crumblets into their Napa Valley grog as they reel in disbelief at your brutishness and lack of culture. If you think the stuff published in these books is ridiculous, just read the descriptions of the amusing little wines the authors are drinking at their oh-so-exclusive soirees... Sheesh! Piffle and claptrap indeed! Many of us would prefer some real meat and potatoes to lemon chiffon with generous dollops of whipped cream.</p>

<p>Many (but thankfully not all, and hopefully not most) artists and their followings are, simply put, poseurs. Nothing new in that, by the way. I don't mind flowery language if it really conveys a meaningful message. More often than not, I find, it is (as Paul points out) simply a lot of recycled ruffles and lace, and often only an attempt to dress up and/or disguise the bare and frayed intellectual threads of what is essentially worn out denim (usually bell-bottoms).</p>

<p>Keep in mind, also, that publishers want pages to publish. Words add pages. If the result for the reader is something like "blahblahblahblahblahblahblah [lovely photograph] blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah [lovely photograph] blahblahblahblahblahblahblah, etc.", so be it -- they've still managed to kill a few trees to put out something more than a brochure and given the "true artistes" something new to twitter about.</p>

<p>And to Fred (with all due respect, I assure you!): I would find much more value in a description of what the artist's "personal trajectory" actually is. Why add, in whatever prosaic style, the rather mundane observation that one's work is informed by one's life experience, or asserting that throwing the ol' Brownie in your car and going for a picture-takin' ride makes one's work "hitherto unarticulated"? I'd say the artist is not at all unique in this regard, and such filler material does absolutely nothing to help me understand the artist or the work. Meaningful commentary is one thing -- banal statements dressed up in baroque language are just wasted words meant to impress rather than inform.</p>

<p>Ray, have to agree with Matt... I lean heavily toward #1 IF you level it off! Very nice shot...</p>

<p>It seems that for the time being we're stuck with a tedious workaround... Jens Duttke, the developer of PhotoMe, has apparently been compiling a list of lens codes for his software and will apparently add specific lenses on request (!). If some poor slob working solo in Germany can come up with this stuff, I fail to see why all the brains at the metadata working group (including, as Peter points out, both Adobe and Sony) can't solve the problem a bit more elegantly. Primarily, it amazes me that the ability to have this data clearly open and available for quick easy searches based on lens model isn't recognized as having any significant value to these folks.</p>

<p>Chris, I'll be working over the weekend to implement the exiftool workaround, or something much like it, and searching the net for other potential solutions. I'll be happy to update you and share any new info I find. My appreciation in advance if you would kindly do the same!</p>

<p>Another interesting discussion on the topic: <a href="http://www.alphamountworld.com/forums/digital-photography-software-and-post-pr/theres-secret-object-floating-my-exif/2008-4/456">http://www.alphamountworld.com/forums/digital-photography-software-and-post-pr/theres-secret-object-floating-my-exif/2008-4/456</a></p>

<p>I'm getting carried away here. Christopher, I hope some of this is useful!</p>

<p>OK, finally found a decent explanation and a "sorta" solution -- see <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39797&PID=438536">http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39797&PID=438536</a> -- the mud has settled just a bit, but I still think a solution from Sony and/or Adobe would be easy to accomplish (caveat being the issue with 3rd party lenses). Hope this helps us all!</p>

<p>Forgive me, Peter... Yes, that info is there. I think the problem is with the lens id field (manufacturer/model), not with focal length, etc., and it is to that info I was referring. Sorry for the confusion.</p>