Jump to content

mikemorrellNL

Members
  • Posts

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

429 Excellent

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,330 profile views
  1. Artwork at Antwerp central station. Post-processed in Nik Silver Efex
  2. I'm delighted, @pavel_l.! Great visualization! Mike
  3. I haven't posted photos on PN for many years. In conversation with another PN member I realized that it was high time I updated my 'Personal Album' with some photos that were less than 10 years old 😉. In that period, 95% of the photos I take are as a 'voluntary photographer' for various local not-for-profit organizations. They have implicit 'ownership' over the publication of my photos (whatever the laws say) so it just doesn't feel right to me to publish these photos on PN. I have a small group of close friends (now all women) who from time visit art museums. Usually as a 'birthday treat' where the person whose birthday is it is gets to choose where we go and goes for free. Yesterday, we visited the 'Panamarenko house' in Antwerp. I'd never heard of 'Panamarenko' and I'm sure you haven't either. But I found the visit really fascinating. 'Panamarenko' is considered an artist, especially in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany. He was also much wider acclaimed. He qualified as an 'artist' from the Belgian Art Academy. Yes, he made many 2-D visual artworks, but his main interests were 3-D objects related to 'flight'. His main 'artistic activities' were therefore design, engineering and construction. I found it fascinating to look his very cluttered house (and all his junk)! Everything gave the impression that he was a 'scatter-brained artist', flitting between various unfinished projects, leaving all his copious junk wherever it had fallen. In contrast, his extensive book and VHS collections were well-ordered. Although this post (with the exception of photos taken by and of him) has little to do with photography, I just want to mention that I for the first in a long time felt inspired to take some photos (on my mobile phone). This is absolutely not an 'ad' but I've uploaded couple of photos to my album.
  4. I saw a post on PN about editing the details of published photos. Intrigued, I did a couple of 'experiments' My findings are: - Within 15 minutes of uploading a new photo, the "Manage Photo' button includes an option to 'Manage Details', including options to change the name and description of the photo. - After 15 minutes the 'Manage Details'' option under the 'Manage Photo' button disappears; the 2 remaining options are 'report' or 'delete 'If you feel that the right title and description is important for your photos then my advice is to upload photos to PN one at a time. Within 15 minutes you give each photo your preferred title and description.
  5. Hi John, I'm long retired but I'm still quite curious to find out why some websites don't work as you'd expect them to. My only involvement in a couple of local 'not-for-for-profit' websites in entirely voluntary. So as a PN member, I read your post with curiosity! Following a couple of 'experiments', I think (suspect) that I've figured things out. I'll post my 'findings' to the PN 'Help' forum too. Experiments I've just upload 3 'test images' to my personal Album and I think (suspect) I've figured things out. I uploaded my 1st 'test' photo to my album, faffed about a bit and it didn't seem to matter whether I uploaded a new photo to an existing Album or tried to edit an existing photo. The only 2 options I saw under 'Manage Image' were a) Report Image and b) Delete image. As far as I knew then, you could just upload images with any remaining Exif data. You can usually 'strip' some or all Exif data when exporting from a post-processing program. Though again, I personally believe that including Exif data really helps other members in figuring out 'how did she/he take this shot?' On the upload of my 2nd photo, I was a bit quicker off the mark. Suddenly the 'Manage Image' options also included a 3rd option: 'Edit Details'' (including adding a custom title and description). I added a 3rdphoto and the 'Edit details' option was still available for my 2nd an 3rd photos. I can only guess that the 15 minutes 'time-out' on editing posts also applies to editing 'photo details'. When you upload a photo, you also have the option of adding 'tags' (which I assume will be used in searching for photos). Summary I realize that this doesn't t help help you with your existing photos on PN but hopefully for future photos. You of course always have the option of deleting your best photos and uploading them again and editing 'the details' within 15 minutes. Hope the helps, Mike
  6. It's an interesting photo, @pavel_l.. Perhaps with my limited imagination, I'm struggling see a connection between the photo and the title. @hjoseph7 called it a 'utility box'. The title - as you spell it - means to me 'world wide web'. So I find it difficult to to make a visual connection between this locked-up (and old-looking) external apparatus and the current global network of internet servers. Looking at the photo, perhaps you were referencing remnants of previous world wars. Whatever the case, I really hope you'll share the story about this photo! Best wishes, Mike
  7. Hi John, I really enjoyed (quickly) browsing through your PN 'portfolio'. You have widely varied and wonderful photos! IHMO, many (future?) members could learn a lot from your photos. I notice that for each photo you include the Exif info (Gearhead 😉) but whatever the gear, you also have a great 'photographic eye'. In other words - whatever gear you're using - you're always going to capture great photos. IMHO, (new?) members could learn a lot from your photos. Yes, from the Exif data but also from your 'photographic eye'. I would therefore encourage you to add some info about 'where the photo was taken, when and why'. All the Exif info is there. FWIW, your title reminds me of the second line in a poem by William Blake entitled Auguries of Innocence.
  8. Hi Kamala, I still think it's a stunning image! So no negative comments from me! But close up, I do see some signs that your editing is not perfect. PM me if you want any more detaills. Kind regards, Mike
  9. Hi Sam, yes, the obvious 'Photoshopping' is laughable! As is the way that this resulted in such 'PR chaos'. It completely negated any positive effect the publication of the photo was designed to achieve. You'd think that William & Kate - and certainly the palace's PR people - would have expected that this photo would be picked apart. As you can imagine, the 'photo story' has been headline news in the UK and a major topic in news/commentary TV programmes. "Kate" is still the nr. 1 'trending topic' on X (formerly twitter). From what I read, public (and media) opinion tends to break down into 3 groups: - those that are appalled by this blatant - and very amateur - attempt at 'photo manipulation' (like the press agencies who's stance was that it didn't meet their media guidelines - those that just think 'Aw, c'mon it's just a series of informal, amateur photo's that Kate tried to touch up in a very amateur way that she shared on social media. Kate's human and makes mistakes too'. - those (like me) who are just puzzled by this whole unnecessary affair: the need to either create a composite photo and/or patch and clone in photoshop and why Kate (as a Photoshop novice") decided to do this herself; Kate has taken and published 'informal family photos' on social media in the past (with no indication of blatant edits) and has received only positive feedback on them. For me, creating a 'composite photo' or patching/cloning' is always the last resort if none of the photo's in a series is good enough to publish 'as is' with only minor adjustments. I gather William took the original photo(s) 😉 Ignoring the very amateur photoshopping (and the need for it) for the moment, FWIW, I think that there are a couple main factors underlying the 'photo affair': - The photo is the 1st one published of Kate since she underwent abdominal surgery on January 17. It's therefore 'important' and was was always likely to have been highly scrutinized for clues about her health and recovery - As with all photos published on Kate and William's social media accounts, there's always some confusion - especially in this case - whether it was an 'official' Royal photo or just an 'amateur, informal photo' taken by one of the family members - Any hint of 'photo manipulation' feeds into suspicions that additional 'Royal photos' are manipulated in some way to create the best 'PR' My take: it was just a stupid and misguided mistake by Kate to try and 'salvage' (or improve?) the original photo(s). She's made a general apology but she hasn't really explained her motivation for trying to manipulate the photo(s). IMHO, neither William nor Kate are fools. Since the original photo(s) are not being published, something's going on behind the scenes that we don't (yet) know about. My personal fantasy is that the original photo(s) weren't ideal and Kate - misguidedly - tried to make the best of them. Should Kate and William have brought in a professional photographer? Most definitely! Mike
  10. Lovely photo, John! Personally, I'm not so much interested in your specific equipment or technique. Just in the wonderful result that - through your artistic eye and craftmanship - you've achieved! Congrats,, Mike
  11. Sorry, with no offence intended to past or future contributors, I'm just become bored by this thread. Please just carry on without me as contributor.
  12. Hi @jc1305us, as a European. i have no idea idea what the 'The old Met Life tower, Madison Square Park, NY.' is or what it represents. In general, I'm not a great fan of (or have any experience with) B/W photos. But I do really like yours! For me, there's a whole lot to like about this photo. Notably the 'meandering, organic foreground' towards the building. IMHO, the photo is fine as it is. My only suggestion would be perhaps to play around with the 'levels' and contrast., The deep black branch which crosses the building kind of (for me) visually blocks off the building. The foreground is (except for my note above) wonderful! Since the current foreground is so 'dramatic', I wonder whether the photo could be improved by bringing at least as much 'dramatism' (contrast) to the building. Up to you, but my personal 'vision' for this photo is a 'peep-through' to a building. In other words, the building (through more contrast, sharpness ) should ideally be the 'focal point' of the photo. To facilitate this 'foreground' might need to be toned down a bit w.r.t. contrast and sharpness. Not an 'expert' just an amateur, subject comment that I hope - with other members - will stimulate your thinking! Best wishes, Mikew
×
×
  • Create New...