lyndon

Tick-borne Lyme Disease is also an issue here in the SF Bay Area. I have seen warnings in areas in the Berkeley Hills and am fairly sure they exist in the Marin Headlands and up to Stinson Beach/Point Reyes.

It's good to do a thorough check after being out in the field because, apparently, the tick has to be attached for 24-36 hours before the Lyme Disease virus is transferred. They are small and easy to miss, though, particuarly on dogs who are affected by the disease in the same way.

Of the two I normally shoot Provia, but very low volume so the cost isn't such an

issue. However, on safari in Africa last year I shot Sensia for the first time because I

needed a large number of rolls and, side by side, I noticed a significant difference

between the two emulsions

Provia has much tighter grain and more saturation, so whether or not it's worth

paying twice as much for the Provia really depends on how critical your work is. For

consumer-level, amateur work, Sensia should do just fine.

<p><i>If yes, I (and probably a number of other people) would throw away less

slides as non-keepers, going forward.</i></p>

<p>Arnab, much depends on what you're in it for. If you're a photographer purely

looking to make money and you'd be happy selling mediocre work, then by all means

keep those sub-standard shots that you ordinarily wouldn't keep.</p>

<p>Personally, as well as being something of a perfectionist in my everyday work

(web design) I'm a photographer for the love of the craft and the medium and I

couldn't stomach selling or marketing an image I felt was a mediocre or below the

standards I set myself.</p>

<p>Regarding the image you used for reference, it may be that the photographer

feels that this butterfly image <b>is</b> a great image. If being part of online photo

communities has taught me anything it is that there are an awful lot of people posting

incredibly ordinary images without knowing how far short of great photography they

are falling. It's all subjective so there is equal chance that such a photographer could

find someone willing to pay such a price for mediocrity.</p>

Many thanks to you all for your responses. As it happens, I didn't manage to

get to either Rainier or Olympic and I watched the fireworks from a boat in the

middle of Lake Union -- not the most stable platform for photographing

fireworks!

Nevertheless, this is all great information for the next time I'm up that way,

hopefully soon.

Two questions regarding a trip I'm about to take to Seattle this coming week:

1) I have one day to go to either Mt. Ranier or Olympic Natl. Park and wanted

to get an idea of which I should go for. I'm primarily interested in grand

scenics and wildlife, but am also aware that it's entering wildflower season on

Mt. Ranier. In either case, what are some sunset locations?

2) Where can I buy Fuji slide film in the Seattle area? The only other time I

was up there I couldn't find a camera store catering to professionals.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I can't speak for New York but as a San Francisco resident I can assure you

that it's no different from anywhere else. As others have said, just use your

common sense and keep your wits about you.

<br><br>

SF's biggest problem (and it has become a <b>really</b> big problem) is the

burgeoning homeless population, but and I'm sure I don't speak out of

turn here a lot of them are often so loaded on something or other that

they don't pose much of a threat.

<br><br>In the main, unless you are actively seeking to photograph the city's

worst neighborhoods, you aren't going to find much to shoot in the places you

should try to avoid, specifically the "Tenderloin" (covering roughly the square

area between Van Ness, Market, Post and Powell) and SF's own wine country

(*grin*), the few blocks south of Market on 6th Street. Even then I've wandered

through these areas solo with a laptop over my shoulder and camera

equipment on my back at all hours of the day and night -- not the best idea but

I wasn't harrassed once.

<br><br>Regarding the bridges, I've been on around them both on more

occasions than I can remember since 9/11 and have had no problems

whatsoever. I've wandered out onto the Golden Gate span with a big tripod

and large backpack at 5am as the only one around and it would have been

easy for watching cop to stop me if he had been worried by my presence.

<br><br>

While a lot of DB's stuff is nice, some of it comes across as overly saturated, in

my opinion anyway -- and that from someone who shoots 90% Velvia!

Whether it's on-camera filtration (as would be my guess based on the

evidence of other filters like the soft filter on the cows, for example) or post-

production in Photoshop, he obviously has a look that he is going for that

comes down to personal preference.

Eric, from my standpoint, you describe two different schools of thought on

nature (or, more specifically, animal) photography that don't necessarily

overlap depending on individual taste.

I can understand both sides: on the one hand I can appreciate, for argument's

sake, a nice image of a horse backlit by warm sunlight.

But, for me personally, for an image to carry real power, it helps if there is a

story surrounding it or the impression that it was a challenge to capture, be it

explicit or implied.

I try to apply that philosophy to my own photography. Nowadays I will eschew

a close-up shot of deer in Yosemite who will walk right up to you because of

their regular contact with humans in favor of something that requires a little

more patience, work and maybe a nice slice of luck!

It's not always apparent from an image how difficult a particular scene was to

capture but, very often, the types of images I am drawn to are self-explanatory

in that respect.

I was in Death Valley around April 28th last year and I did the Mesquite dunes

at Stovepipe Wells at sunset when it was <b>extremely</b> windy and at

sunrise the next morning when it was dead, dead calm -- and, frankly, there's

nothing like it.

<br>

<br>If you go for sunrise, aim to get there well in advance of twilight because

it's distances are deceptive. From the road, the tallest dunes look close, but

are probably a half-hour hike away.

<br><br>

The thing with Death Valley is to use the middle of the day when it is very hot

(and in April it'll be in the 90s) to scout out spots for shooting in the magic

hours. Some spots are over 50 miles apart and the more remote locations are

tens and tens of miles on graded, washboardy, boneshaking roads.

<br><br>

I'll be going there for the third time this week, but if there is going to be a

wildflower display in DV this spring, mid-April is when it's going to be.

This is going a bit off-topic but having taken a look at your website, I was wondering what you used to scan your photographs.

The closer of the two red fox shots is, for example, a phenomenally sharp scan (the type I dream of with my Nikon LS 4000. Were they drum-scanned?

To contribute to the original thread, I can't see any harm in having both on your site because you could get a lot of cross-polination of potential buyers. If you're really worried about it, you could always split your site in two and separate the two disciplines into their own section.

I was on safari in South Africa 3 weeks ago and took a tripod (Bogen 3221 -- not light, but I'm glad I took it 'cause I used it a lot), a monopod and a beanbag and while I used all three, I used the tripod for 90% of the time, mainly because I found it sturdier than the monopod and there was nothing to rest the beanbag on.

In the jeeps we were driving in (Land Rover Defenders, which seem to be standard for the private reserves in SA), I found one row of seats that straddled the back wheel to be ideal; I put two of the tripod legs on this flat hump over the wheel inside the vehicle and the third leg on the footplate outside the vehicle. Of course, this only worked for subjects on that side of the vehicle; the rest of the time I used the tripod as a monopod, either on the seat with all the legs collapsed or with legs extended to the floor. Maneouvrability wasn't good, but it worked.

The drivers always shut the engines off to help the wildlife adjust to the vehicle's presence anyway, so your biggest issue then will be trying to keep other people in the jeep still! Take some fast film and pick the best part of the vehicle for your needs.

I've just come back from 2 weeks in South Africa and depending on the times of day you plan to shoot, I would definitely recommend taking some 400 speed film with you. I ended up pushing to 800, 1000 and 1600 as the light deteriorated so, if I were to do it again, I'd take some rolls even faster film than 400.

I shot both Sensia and Provia and while Sensia is more cost-effective, I was far more pleased with the Provia (which also deals with pushing better). But, if cost is a factor (as it usually is) Sensia is more than adequate.

I like Mary's faceless committee idea a lot. The "chosen ones" would be anonymous but members would at least know that the selection committee was drawn from among the ranks of consistent and trusted contributors to the site -- and therefore less likely to moan about an elven conspiracy!

As already mentioned by others, I think the rating system has merits. In the main, the Top Member Rated photos are of a very high standard and the top 200 of the Top Rated Photographers contains some excellent stuff.

But it is clear that things really got crazy once the rankings page was introduced so I would suggest scrapping that and maybe tweaking the rating parameters to be a bit more intuitive than just "originality" and "aesthetics".

More than anything, though, the site should be about the pictures. Increase the number of random high-standard photos on the homepage from 1 to, say, 5, and categorize the POW selection to reduce the amount of in-fighting between the various factions (e.g. landscape, people etc).

The system ain't that broke, but the level of competition needs to be reduced and the focus of POW needs to be diluted.

I'm in favour of the ratings system, despite the increasing abuse (which I think could be greatly lessened by implementing some of the ideas already posted; disabling the ability to rate your own photos, having some sort of 'Slashdot-esque' logic involved, etc).

As someone already said, the "top rated photos" from the previous week/month etc is, for me, the best thing about the site because you do get some great photos in there that would otherwise be hard to find. The volume of images on this site necessitates some sort of numerical ratings system to find good images.

While the Top-Rated Photographers" page does promote a negative competitive aspect, the ratings system that drives it does at least give you quick access to some undeniably good portfolios - e.g. with a comments-only system, it would be much harder to come across the likes of Tony Dummett, Dan Heller, David Julian - all 3 are regulars in the Top 10 or Top 20 and this is a fair reflection of their ability as photographers, IMHO. That's not a defence of the Top-Rated Photographers' page, but a vote for the ratings system.

When I first came to Photo.net 6 months ago, I spent hours refreshing the home page to view the randomly-generated photos that came up because you knew that they had either been hand-picked by the elves or were there because they were consistently highly rated. Again, another vote for ratings because, overall, the standard of these shots is high.

Restricting the number of photos that a user can upload per day / week is a good idea and might prompt people to only post their best images.

Restricting rating / commenting rights to new users should be based o

on length of membership as opposed to portfolio content because there are some, like me, who haven't got their portfolios scanned yet but enjoy commenting and rating photos.

I'm rambling now, but you get the drift. I think the ratings abuse should be the number one target, not the system itself, because that is plainly against the spirit of Photo.net as a whole. But if you are going to change the system, we do need more criteria to rate by than just Aesthetics and Originality. Personally, I'd take Originality way completely; how many truly original photos are there left?