g1

Stefan, would it be out of the question to capture on Kodak Portra, and print from the digitized scan? You could then convert using PS channels to finetune, and you get more than one copy. Of course, if you are looking for one off originals, this would be out of the question. <p>

I only suggest this because I find my lightpainting (including with lasers sometimes) render better tones on Kodak Portra 100. If I want B&W, I just convert in PS.

Domenico the simplest solution would be to get an art reproduction made by an imaging service that use top quality 4x5 scanning backs. The Powerphase FX by Phaseone is probably the most highly regarded for art reproduction in the industry at the moment. The detail is apparently mindblowing. I am not sure how much it would cost to get your digital files, and I'm afraid I can't help with info on services with this back either. I would suggest doing a local search on "Powerphase FX" to get some quotes.

ps Laura, I forgot to add that I love art too, but my understanding is that this decision appears to have been made on the basis of both statistical data, and on the observation of behaviour from participating members in an <i>interactive</i> community. Democracy does not mean freedom for the individual at all costs, to behave how the individual should like regardless of the greater good, of the aims, the people of the community, or it's future. Where I come from that kind of "freedom" philosophy that dismisses the wider community is known as "out for number one", ie <b>ME.</b>

Laura, first of all I think you ought to see photo net as the global site that it is, and being located in America doesn't mean anything to the users that visit from elsewhere. Secondly, I think you ought to look up 'democracy' in a dictionary; it is about governments being elected by the whole population. This however, is an independent internet site run by overworked programming staff and not elected politicians. I have seen the current administrators participate on threads, ask the members views, improve the system, improve it again etc etc, but at the end of the day all they can do is try to find solutions that will please all of the people all of the time. It is simply impossible. So, apart from your misunderstanding that this is a public sector property run by elected representatives of the American people, what would you like to see change here specifically?

Thanks Andy, in Anna's threats of lawsuit it is not clear what or to whom she is even referring, so if she cannot be specific I would assume her claims to be groundless. At the first mention it appears to be directed to Brian on grounds of discrimination. Later it seems to be referring to something or someone entirely different on grounds of defamation. I have not yet come across any action or written comment that brings her into disrepute, whether it be based on misrepresented fact or subjective opinion. As to the non-performance of contract, I can't see any grounds whatsoever.<p>

To be clear for others about my post above, I'm not saying that the law is restricted to <b>only</b> accept defamation when misrepresenting a fact, but rather that misrepresentations of fact would be the <i>cut and dry</i> case that would warrant such confidence of success. Obviously law varies not only between countries but also across states. Subjective opinion may in some circumstances be considered defamation if damage and disrepute are plainly evident, but IMO it would need to be a very unambiguous case in order to be upheld. Anybody who has ever dealt with childrens squabbles will know that you cannot easily discern the perpetrator from the victim without witnesses or evidence, because in practically all childrens minds it's never <i>their</i> fault. Emotion overrides objectivity.<p>

If Anna has specific points of reference with genuine grounds (and it is not simply retaliation for a perfectly lawful editorial decision which she does not like), then let's hear it and deal with it. Where is discrimination, where is defamation, and which bit of the contract has not been honoured? Only then can anyone take these claims seriously and communicate effectively about it. <p>If on the other hand, it is just a matter of so and so calling me such and such, then surely editors and members on this site also have a case, and we could all sue each others **** off! You see it's so ridiculous, and we're only going there because Anna has made very serious allegations that she will not even substantiate.

Anna, I thought it was to be your last post and then you post again!! In answer to your question no, I am not a lawyer, but law is integrated in many study programmes because it is an important knowledge base to have. It has been covered extensively during my studies on Psychology for reasons relating to counselling issues and such like, but more relevantly my degree in PhotoMedia has the name 'Media' attached to the end of the name because it relates to <i>media</i>. That includes papers, magazines, digital publications, television, film and so forth. Law is a fundemental consideration in the media, and students are required to cover aspects of law in their first year, before even embarking on their own personal journey. I tell you it's great to be able to see a wider world than my own little headspace!

Anna, if you read the benefits listed which are attached to 'becoming a patron' when you subscribed, you will notice it does not offer a guarantee of rating ability. In fact, it does not even mention rating options at all. So where precisely, has PN committed an illegal act? Because this is all that happened when you first threatened lawsuit. <p>Regarding libel and defamation of character, defamation must be a lie or claim that is presented as 'fact' about a person, and which damages their reputation, it is not the same as merely commenting an opinion on whether a person is considered this [subjective adjective] or not, and which may offend your sensibility. Nobody is accusing you of any criminal activity or such thing, nor making claims or statements of fact which are not true, in order to misrepresent the facts. Whereas you have outrightly accused PN administrators of illegal proceedings, which <i>could</i> be construed as slander if unfounded, and libel laws might then be applied for damage against <i>you</i>, yes? It's a sure possibility you may not have considered.<p>

It is not a personal witch hunt against one invidual. It is about statistical data. The ratings mechanism had become redundant on one members portfolio, and therefore the ability to rate it had been disabled by editorial decision. As I understand it, editors maintain rights to change or introduce policies. That's about the top and bottom of the issue here, and the rest is superfluous.

<b>Brian said:</b> <i>"5 is a perfectly fine rating for a photo that you "like". Keep 6 and 7 for some kind of "Favorites" concept, perhaps reserving "7" to mean something like Top Photo of the Month and "6" to mean something like Top Photo of the Week."</i><p>

This I am in total agreement, and it is so simple I fail to see why anyone would have such a problem in understanding it. If members cannot understand it, or refuse to honour the idea voluntarily, then perhaps the solution is to ration 6's & 7's in <i>exactly</i> this way. We only get one [or other set quota] opportunity to place 7 within the month, and only one [or other set quota] to place 6 within the week. I know rationing has been suggested before, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it is the <i>only</i> possible way to go. At least worth a pilot test Brian? It would be interesting to see how it affected the gallery after a couple of months wouldn't it?

That's certainly a constructive and efficient action to take IMO. One question though Brian, will an excluded portfolio photographer still be able to rate others? Because disabling ratings of their work might then stimulate them into an all-out retaliation without fear of damage back in their folders. It would in effect be a case of having 'nothing to lose'.

Tom, yes I hear what you are saying. I had actually interpreted Carrier's comment to refer to the top rated database. Judging by his response above, I guess that is what he meant. I don't think anybody has suggested some members don't deserve rates or critiques. Certainly there should be no elitist element active on PN. I would be the first to leave if that was how things developed.

<p>

Basically what is in discussion here is what Jeremy describes when he says <i>If you want uncritical praise, I guess you get 7/7 ratings accompanied by �fabulous� or �Your pictures are always so great� or �You are a great artist� and similar meaningless drivel. </i> Well it isn't really of utmost importance, but nevertheless it is a shame when you want to view a variety of the best pictures that PN has to offer, only to find these kind of 'drivel' pages from the same few photographers over and over again. How else are we to find the best of PN's photo bank? <p>

I like Jeremy's approach and perspective, and think his post is a great note to close the thread on: <p>

<i>So I guess I am joining the chorus to say that all of us who really think that honest criticism and evaluation is what this site is all about must step up our efforts to deliver such critiques more often and to more members. We should especially try to give helpful criticism to those who seem to us to need it the most, whether they announce that they are beginners or not. We all could use some help of this kind, no matter how skilled or experienced we are. </i> <b>Jeremy Stein</b>

On the point about snobbery; what is your definition here? To me snobbery is when one person thinks themselves better than another. That is quite personal and judgemental, and often without foundation. This is <i>not</i> what I wish to see on PN. Discernment on the other hand is quite a different matter. If you cannot discern between 'good' 'bad' or 'interesting' 'boring' etc, in photographic technicality, originality, or aesthetics, then what is the point of rating at all?

Carl, Bente changed the photo under discussion after it was brought into this thread. For reference it was a picture of a cat in a pot, with an extremely PS blurred background. The edges were the most rough cut n' paste I have ever seen. The point was that so many 7's would merit this picture a masterpiece, or at the very least an extremely special piece of work. The best. Clearly there was a need for an alternative perspective on the image. Perhaps it was not worthy of perfect 7's? Perhaps not everybody thought it a masterpiece? Doug is not saying you cannot rate 7's if you honestly believe a picture is worth it, but that <i>others</i> ought to use their ratings to contest those 7's if their own considered opinion is different to the general populous. <p>

I would be interested in how Bente thought of the high ratings. Did it qualify as the highly original, or the absolute best in aesthetics? I would be surprised if Bente considered that it did. Surely a few 5's would be encouraging enough? Why is it necessary for friends to go over the top with so many 6's & 7's in order to be 'kind'? Why didn't Bente write in response to the issue discussed, the photograph itself, or respond to the points raised, instead of making a complete diversion by bringing in a different issue about politeness? <p>

Tom I think you are getting mixed up between taste and acceptance of logical and objective criteria being used for assessment when placing rates. Please note the said image was rated by me as a 3/3. It could have been lower and still been justified. I would not rate anybody's image so low if some level of thought, skill, technical proficiency, or design input had been present, <i>regardless</i> of whether it had high rates on it or not. Speaking for myself here, I am not acting like the self-appointed police which has happened in the past, where high rates are brought down simply because they <i>are</i> rated highly, or even because I do not <i>like</i> the image. Somewhere some objectivity must play a part. For me, if technical ability, thought to aesthetic design, or some concept is apparent, then extremely low rates are not justified IMO. The same as high rates are not justified when they are absent. <b>Regardless</b> of who the photographer is, or whether I like the picture or not.<p>

With reference to comments about newbies, I agree that positive encouragement, time and tolerance are required. They need to feel welcome, and that they are contributing or at least developing and progressing. This applies to more serious photographers with more experience too, and all those in between. We never finish learning, or 'arrive' at a winners gate. The goal posts continually move.

Bente it was me that drew attention to your cat-pot picture. I found it by myself, and quite frankly I was surprised that it had earned so many 6's & 7's. It was this very reason I decided Doug was right about the rating issue, and decided to start using the rating system again after a year of opting out in favour of comments only. I brought your picture to Doug's attention as a prime example of the rating issue he was discussing. People are rating according to who is a friend instead of according to the quality of work being reviewed. I do apologise if the attention to your picture was unwanted but it is on a public forum and is open to discussion and critique amongst members, as well as high rates from your friends. I do hope you understand what we are discussing here, and again please accept my apologies. It was not intended to single any person out, as the problem is currently widespread.

Well Doug this is a very persuasive argument, and after only 2 rates over the last year, you have managed to talk me into using the rating system again. Besides which, if Brians new ratings reform goes ahead I will need at least a hundred bellshaped rates to earn anonymous ratings...

Regarding randomness, perhaps there is some purpose and intent within the exercise or randomly producing something? Fractals for example, may be produced by random algorithms at the click of a button, but how many results might be rejected before the 'artist' ends up with his/her satisfactory result? The chosen piece has been produced by random means, but there may still have been intention and preconceived ideas, and according to those ideas a piece may be chosen by a process of elimination. The same goes for 'found' subjects. How many found objects are there for goodness sake? How come an artist chooses a particular one to label or exhibit as art? The intention may not be the same as a created piece of work, but that does not mean the artist did not observe the subject for a particular reason. Or he may not have a preconceived idea, and instead see something unusual or special which he wishes to present to the world. In either case, I think intention is there by default if the artist is presenting something as 'art'.

I had a horrendous result on a shorter exposure of only 60 secs. The noise was worse then I ever saw - on iso 800. Good point Tom, about the battery position & temperature.

.... just a thought that occurred to me... I forgot to cover the viewfinder! Did you cover yours?

Well I tried f5.6 at 15 mins, and you're not alone with the magenta band! As you say, the phenomenal amount of hot pixels isn't so surprising, but I agree the magenta on the right side is unfathomable. Perhaps someone that knows about the mechanics of digital sensor might be able to enlighten us. I'm not sure who to ask though. It seems that film still maintains a stonghold that digital can't replace. Unless its just with this model. Would be interesting to find out what happens with other makes of digital...<div></div>

Hi Mark. Sorry for the delay but I haven't yet had time to test this. On your sample I found it odd that the problem only occurs on one side. It looks like a light leak. I'm going to try mine with and without the lens cap on, to see if there are any differences. Also, it may help to discover if it is your particular camera, or the model in general. Back later.

I have used 2- 5 min exposures for light painting, and there is no noise present at 100 iso. However as you have observed, 400 iso and above does have unacceptable levels of noise. I haven't used an exposure as long as 10 mins yet, but I am curious about the magenta you mention. I will try it out tonight. However, there is a problem where I live: sodium lights - so I will test it indoors.

Oh, the link doesn't work...

Oh so it's bad news? Just what I suspected. OK, I'll check it out and thanks very much Jonathan.

Is the D60 suitable for infrared shooting? Has anybody tried it, and

if so how did you go about achieving an effective result? Was there

any post software work to do (eg channels)? I am hoping to acquire a

hoya R72 but do not know if the D60 works with infrared and hence

whether I ought to just forget it.

First of all, I would have appreciated a member from the email notification list of Mike Spinaks [now deserted] thread, to have informed me of posting in the wrong discussion! <p>

 

To quote from there: <i>"Well well, look what I found here today! Now there is a specified definition of 'unmanipulated' for the purpose of photographer's declaration. Does this mean that soon it will be an option as a tool in the search facilities? Well done editors, for finally addressing this issue. Let's hope this is the beginning of the end, to all those intense 'photograph or not' debates.</i><p>

 

All the while we have a newer discussion on the issue here! Having read through the majority of posts I have to say I think the checkbox idea is suffice, even if it does not cover all and sundry in between manipulated or non-manipulated. The primary focus is on whether or not a photograph is depicting reality or not, and that's really what we need to know. It's a step in the right direction, and if this checkbox could be integrated into a search tool then all the anti-PS members could filter images they look at. <p>

 

Regarding the issue of prevalence of digital composites on the top list pages, I must confess I am tired or the same names and styles coming up. As both a photographer and PS'er I do find much of the work lacking in PS skill and aesthetics. I find it surprising that such a large number of high rates go to the same contributors. However, at the same time I am aware that is just my own taste and opinion. Regardless of my preferences it is undeniable that the toplist pages are also indicative of what the public at large <i>want</i> to see. I don't think mate rating is the only explanation (who could seriously have that many rates from trading with friends alone?) Brian is quite correct that digital imaging is now integrated in practically all college courses on photography now, and at my college lately we had a fund raising sale. I was proud that more of my images sold than any other students, but was surprised at what images were bought. Did they buy my carefully planned and executed pure photography? No! The top selling photos were the digitally manipulated ones. The two that sold most copies were exactly like another member described above: goo tooled, composited reflections and the like. <p>

So it is a sign of the times, it's where the market is at this time. It won't stay like that I am sure. It is a novelty fad. I am already tiring of the kitschy style myself, and that coming from a previously passionate digital manipulator, might lead us to expect the mass populus will also tire of it at some point. Over-saturation always pays a price.<p>

<b>Disclaimer:</b> I still have a passion for more complex PS works and will without doubt still pursue illustrative PS work while a demand is there, but will endeavour to avoid the all too common 'kitschiness'.

I just went there and couldn't access anything. It seems you have to be affiliated with an educational body.