don_essedi

I want to eliminate the photos there.  They are over a decade old.

 

PN no longer seems worth it.  I assume I cannot delete my account, either.

 

 

How do I edit (delete, add etc) the "Images" on my Account page?

On 10/30/2022 at 7:47 PM, bruce_z._li2 said:

In my observations, many of the newer (maybe younger) film crowds are attracted to other platforms such as 35mmc, emulsive, shootitwithfilm, casualphotophile and etc. Also for content authors, it might gets much more readership over on those platforms. dpreview.com, for example, also features "Film Friday" syndicated articles from those sites.

The existing platforms, such as flickr, photo.net, photrio/apug, rangefinderforum, and largeformatforum, tend to have the similar group of core members without much growth. They are smaller and more intimate, catering to their niche.

I guess this is probably just fine, as things evolve over time anyway.

"In my observations, many of the newer (maybe younger) film crowds are attracted to other platforms such as 35mmc, emulsive, shootitwithfilm, casualphotophile and etc."

Those are blogs not forums. They are owned by those who have an immediate personal or financial interest in their continued existence, something that is rather difficult to achieve in the scattershot of a one size fits all forum design and by a committee or corporation.  Blogs have their own discontents as they tend to mature into sites full of 'yes men'.

The only real value either have is the quality of the content -- I do not mean the photos. I mean the texts of the discussions which encourage developing relationships and recognition  of each other over time. Everything else is secondary, including the steenkin' bodges ( what child wanted those to return?).

 

 

 

Thanks to both you and EllinorWilliams.  There appear to have been some changes to the interface since my first attempt to post a file.

On 10/13/2022 at 4:44 AM, NHSN said:

Wow- surprised you could post without logging in. 

There is a tedious process to do so, including the check "I am not a robot, which pics don't include/do include this or that etc, and one can post as a "Guest".  What threw me off was that, my bookmark for photo.net is my profile page and automatic login via Firefox ("remember password"), which appears to not be the situation now.`

Ok, signed in

 

 

 

Samsung S7 Phone

Cooking - Power Outage last Dec.

 

Fuji x-e1, Jupiter 3

On countries and politics, I live in Europe and - though I have my personal opinions on the US and other countries - I deliberately refrain from expressing them publicly. I strongly believe that political views are best left to the citizens of any country.

 

But I am glad that I live in a country (NL) which - along with Germany, other Benelux and Nordic countries - traditionally has multi-party coalition governments rather than a binary '2-party system' such as in the UK or US.

 

NL (amongst other countries) has long been known as governing by concensus. At National, Provincial and City levels. Yes, there are policy 'trends' depending on whether a left or right leaning coalition is formed. But for the most part, different parties have to 'get along' to be able to govern. All parties (depending on their share of the vote) have to make some concessions to their 'partners' in government.

 

IMHO, a government by concensus goes a long way in avoiding political polarization.

 

One criticism of coalition governments is that are weak. FWIW I think that few people would criticize Angela Merkel's coalition governments as being 'weak'.

 

 

Rather than "multi-party coalition governments", the two US parties are parasitized by ideologues, usually referred to as "neo-con" or "neo-lib", neither of which are actually Republicans or Democrats. Possibly the last times the two parties were not parasitized were the Johnson and the Nixon administrations, I think. When the parasites control both parties some refer to the parties as the uni-party.

Born and raised in Pittsburgh Pa and spent most of my 77 years there, except for 17 in California, 5 in Utah, and now 3 in Missouri where I am now (I don't count the time of my tour in the USMC). It's all good. I liked the places and the people and even still have friends from way back when in N. California and Utah. I don't have any desire to live in other countries or even to visit. I've barely scratched the surface of the USA.

If a photo only looks good after being heavily edited, is it really a good photo?

 

At what point does editing a photo go too far, editing in stars? Changing the colour of the sky?

 

Should a good photographer not have to edit their photos?

 

Just a few prompts - opinions not relevant to the above questions are fine :)

 

How do you avoid it? Instax?

I'm a linux user and Firefox with the UBlock Origin addon. I'm satisfied. I don't do social media at all. Most of my browsing is photography or regarding some obscure historical event.

A thousands images speaks of a goodtime of photography.

 

Irreplaceable memories, of memories past, and still lived in the present.

 

"All I want is you photo in my wallet

A small remembrance of something more solid."

--Blondie

No matter how sophisticated and expensive these camera lenses get, they just can't match the human eye when it comes to sophistication. At first I thought it was mostly 'Dynamic Range' that was lagging in camera/lenses, which we all know is a huge issue in photography, but now that I'm delving into Real Estate photography where angles, perspective and lighting are very important, I'm starting to learn about the limitations of these lenses.

 

***

Suppose I see a lamp which is about 5 feet from me in my living room, behind the lamp is a couch which is about 7 feet from me, next to me is my cup of coffee which is about 1 foot from me, my eyes have no problems with this scene. Everything is in perfect focus and with 3 dimensional clarity ! Now if I tried to take a picture of this scene, (my lamp, my couch, my cup off coffee), I would have all kinds of distortions and focusing problems without the use of skillful lighting effects, sophisticated software, expensive lenses, photo experience, whatever, it just would not be easy.

 

***

 

A digital camera with a small sensor and a good lens should work.

 

Leica IIIf, Elmar 50, Portra 160NC

Serena Supplee's studio, and house

GIII Reala

 

Spotmatic TriX

 

Nokton 50 LTM TriX

don_essedi said:

 

"I think a difference between us is you enjoy narratives related to photographs, while I am less interested in them, or at least I don't feel any loss if I don't know the backstory, and I realize I have not read the OP text of this thread, only looking at the photos. So that's an example. And it is true I will miss stuff I ought to know, but there are a lot of photos and not that much time."

 

A while back I posted some of my casual portraits of people I did in the 70's in my local photography facebook and I included the back story for each of them. I received a hugely positive response from people thanking me for the stories and begging me for more such photos and stories. It seems that for a lot of people the stories are very moving and important as they take in the photo.

 

I only wrote that I think Sam enjoys narratives related to photos and that I am less interested in it than he appears to be. Narrative, storytelling, might be the most common use of language and nearly all people love to tell and hear stories, I think. I'd rather the viewer make up their own narrative, if they are so inclined.

For me, liking a photograph, a person, a butterfly, is part of an often bigger picture. Understanding can be important as well. So, I may see Person X helping an older person across the street. And I may like what I see. Then, I may get the opportunity to sit and talk to that person, get to know that person more, come to understand what motivated the good deed. That adds depth to my experience of the person.

 

Someone mentioned Sondheim. He’s not my favorite composer or lyricist either. But my not liking his work that much isn’t the be all or the end all. My interest in musical theater leads me to want to know and understand his work whether I like it or not. And I get a lot out of listening to his music even though I can’t say I always like it.

 

There are plenty of philosophers who I don’t particularly like who I find fascinating to understand. Despite my dislike for Nietzsche, for example, his place in the history of thought is important enough that to fully understand certain other photographers, I want a working understanding of Nietszche. And even though I don’t like a lot of what he says, I can appreciate what he brings to the table.

 

Yes, I’m photographically motivated by many other things beside what I like.

 

I’ve got plenty of my own photos that I didn’t like when I first saw them. In time, as I came to see more in them and understand more about them, I began to like them.

 

I get much more out of Shakespeare when I read accompanying notes that explain what certain phrases meant in his day and what some of the references I wouldn’t be familiar with are to. Those things are relevant both to my liking and to my understanding of Shakespeare.

 

I see a photo that Nan Goldin made of a woman with a black eye. I then learn that the woman in the photo was her and she’s documenting her own abuse. That makes me feel something and adds to the experience of the photo. That’s because I’m human and not some sort of photo-in-isolation automaton.

 

The world is a textured and layered place and photos and art are not magically separated out from that world as isolated objects simply to be liked or not.

 

I think a difference between us is you enjoy narratives related to photographs, while I am less interested in them, or at least I don't feel any loss if I don't know the backstory, and I realize I have not read the OP text of this thread, only looking at the photos. So that's an example. And it is true I will miss stuff I ought to know, but there are a lot of photos and not that much time.