jordan2240

Was just trying to take a pic of a duck in flight, and accidentally framed it perfectly on the dormer:

Assuming you have a way of contacting the subjects, I'd simply drop them a line and explain that you were a second shooter at their weddings, and came across their photos while cleaning out your drive. Suggest that, if they'd like them, they can send you a flash drive, and you will download the photos for them and return it (you might want to include a photo in any correspondence you send initially so they know your are genuine).

The stuff can be brutal, and I've found nothing that provides much relief. I generally dab rubbing alcohol on it to try to dry it out. Fortunately, I don't seem to be as susceptible to it as an adult as I was a child. As for identification, when I was in scouting, we were taught the little diddy "leaflets three, let it be."

Not really JD - just thinking that everyone putting off weddings will create a barrage of demand in a small timeframe. But you are right. Perhaps many of those couples will find that they aren't as compatible as they thought they were. As for my own wife and me, I think we're finding we're actually more compatible than we thought we were - so there are some 'success' stories. I do bet there will be a baby boom in December/January, so someone who wants to take pics of children might have some success. Whether or not two parents are in the picture (literally and figuratively) remains to be seen.

Well, there might be a lot of people looking for wedding photographers, so if that's an option...

I pretty much stopped taking pictures because nothing about it felt very 'meaningful' to me. I think it is particularly difficult to make a landscape 'tell a story.' I've taken many landscape shots, and seems to me their appeal is purely aesthetic. The photos that have told me stories generally feature people or animals in either a tragic or pleasant situation, but typically there are elements in the photo that depict not only the main subject, but the environment. 'Street photography,' to me, is the style where you are most likely to find stories, but it's not something everyone enjoys, and you certainly don't want to take advantage of someone's suffering in the name of art. But if your landscapes are such that they bring other people pleasure in viewing them, then perhaps that in itself should provide meaning.

Based on the descriptions I've read, I do believe the tail tells the tale, and would also vote 'Coopers.'

Because it costs them virtually nothing, and there is always the chance you might respond to one of their emails. Years ago, I bought a car from a local dealership. I still get a card every Christmas (going on 20 years or more now) from the salesman I bought the car from. While I have yet to go to him again (because I buy a different make of car now), there's always the chance he might get another sale from me. When I coached my son's baseball team years ago, one of the other kid's parents was a developer. I'd get occasional emails from him for years (well after the kids were no longer playing ball) advertising houses he'd built, and always wondered why he bothered since I had no intention of ever moving. Circumstances changed one year, and lo and behold, I ended up buying a house from him. Whatever he spent sending me emails (which had to be virtually nothing) was made up for many times in the profit he made from me buying a house from him.

Interesting problem. If you normally do this type of photography, it's likely you often photograph people with beliefs and/or ideologies that don't match your own, but you simply don't know it. Since you already set everything up, perhaps you can tell them that you'll gladly take their pictures, but you aren't comfortable with those particular props. If they still want the shots, make sure you write into the contract, and make them fully aware, that any props used in the pics are subject to the approval of the photographer. That's probably something that should be in there anyway.

Landscape photography is one of my favorite genres, and I often process my shots pretty simply, so wanted to do the same on this one and see the result. First step is to produce a dup layer and do an 'auto smart fix.' Then I create a new adjustment layer for levels, and move the end sliders around as it suits. Then I create a new adjustment layer for saturation, and move the slider for overall saturation as it suits. After I do these three steps, I adjust opacity as I see fit, or sometimes remove some of the adjustments. In this case, I left all the adjustments at 100% opacity. All processing done in PSE 13.

Two things I particularly like about abstract photography - one, pretty much anyone can do it, and two, it's interesting to get different perceptions of what people see. I once did a series of abstracts based on water drops (I dropped marbles into colored water, and snapped the resulting splashes). I enjoyed looking at the results, and picking non-abstract figures from them. I saw several figures in this one (one of which might receive an R-rating).

Not deleting images, for me, is a lot like keeping that little screw you just found but have no idea what it is for. If you do happen to come upon an application where it might be needed, you complete forget you have it, and go buy a new one anyway.

I once got down on the ground to photograph insects. Should have paid more attention to where I was, as I ended up with a nice poison ivy rash. Hopefully the good Doctor didn't suffer the same fate.

All great shots, and yes, one might be able to guess at the era by looking at specific props, clothing, or hairstyles, but as for a style of portraiture, I'd be very hard-pressed to pick the time frame in which any of the shots was taken. Take the Avedon, for example. The part in the middle of the model's hair might give a hint as to when the shot was taken if one knew that such hairstyles were popular in the 1980's, but if the hair was cut in a crew instead, it would be a wild guess as to the era in which it was 'contemporary.'

I don't know that there is any particular style that defines 'contemporary portraiture.' For example, I don't think you could look at a portrait that was taken 50 years ago and one that was taken yesterday and be able to identify which is which simply by the picture itself. In the links Mike Morrell provides, there are some stunning images, but I don't see any commonality that would allow you to identify what era they came from. So for me, contemporary portraiture would simply be portraits taken within the last 10 years, to put a number on it.

If cloning has to do with artistry, no problem. If it has to do with deception, big problem.

Actually, wouldn't the tendency to crop make the megapixel count more of a consideration? Anyway, I used to always try to crop in-camera, but often found that I wished I'd left a bit more room in the frame afterward for more flexibility, so now, while I still try to compose in-frame, I often leave a little more space "just in case." With digital, it just makes more sense than regretting that you didn't quite catch as much as that tree as you thought you had, for example.

I think one can be quite happy with one's own work, but it isn't nearly as satisfying as having others (or at least one other) enjoy it (which is why sites like flickr are so popular).

Based on this, from Bill C, I wonder if many of these shots would have ever made it into public view had Sweet been the one to determine it. Perhaps many were 'throwaways.'

That's my point. As a photographer, I'm totally 'ordinary,' so if I see a portfolio of work that looks like something I might have done, it doesn't strike me as being particularly notable. It would be like having a meal that tastes like something you might have cooked up yourself, and you aren't a particularly good cook. You have no idea how you'd have made it differently, but you know it didn't do anything special for your taste buds.

I'd do it just like Sweet did - walk around taking random shots of scenes I found interesting - which is why I see this particular work as quite ordinary.

Sure, I'll buy that, given the colors recorded are dependent on the equipment used, so may not exactly match what the eye sees (just as Portra and NPH (and other films) recorded colors differently). There, we've reached agreement. And I'll also agree that my shot would have been much more interesting if I'd have used a wider frame that showed other people watching the subject as he walked by. But since the beach was pretty much deserted save for my wife and I and this fella, I just wanted to record his 'look' (i.e. not just his tush), because I found it rather bold for a public beach.

Well, now I have to walk back because I never said I didn't see a difference in colors. It's like seeing the difference between shooting on Kodak Portra and Fuji NPH. My point has always been that the photos are very ordinary in their composition and subject matter. I believe ruslan accurately described why the colors are as they are - having less to do with intent and more to do with what was the norm, and I don't see them as a significant element in the photos.

Well Tim, I always enjoy your work, so you might be right. Ok, guess I veered there. Walking away.

"I will be quite interested to read what you think about Sweet's work." I don't think I ever veered from the OP.