Jump to content

Tony Rowlett

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    2,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tony Rowlett

  1. <body background="http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/gifs/lightgreen.gif">

    Problem: You've uploaded a photographic image to the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-add">image upload area of photo.net</a>, and now you'd like to display it here in the form of a question so other forum members can respond and offer critique, but you can't because it is viewed as a "web page" on photo.net instead of a regular image file. You can post your question with a <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004LoJ">Clickable Link</a> which would take your viewers to the page on photo.net that contains your image, or, even better, you can add the image here. Right in the body of your post. No problem. Here's how.<p>

    The following instructions assume that you've uploaded one or more images to your photo.net workspace gallery. You must be a member of photo.net by first registering there. Most services are free, including the image upload feature. If you are not a registered member of photo.net, just go to <a href="http://www.photo.net">http://www.photo.net</a> and follow the instructions. It is quick and simple and definitely worth it, even if you do not intend to upload images.<p>

    OK, you've uploaded an image to photo.net. What now?

    <ol>

    <li>First thing, go visit it your image on photo.net, just like any other viewer would. There are three ways to view your image: small, medium, or large. Visit the size that you would like to use for posting here.

    <li>Hover over the image with your mouse and right-click to open the context menu for that image.

    <li>Click on the "View Image" option. The image should reappear all by itself without any photo.net text or links or copyrights, etc.

    <li>Look at the Location field of your browser, and see that word "image-display" appears within the address of your image. If it does, good. Now make sure the entire URL is highlighted, beginning with the "http://..." If "image-display" doesn't appear, then something is wrong. Start over.

    <li>Copy the URL into your paste buffer by pressing Ctrl-C

    <li>Come over to this (or another greenspun.com forum) and you're ready to go.

    </ol>

    You may want to print this post for reference. Go to <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004UkB">my original Adding Images posting</a> to learn the typical way of inserting your image into the body of your post. What you have in your paste buffer is the URL that you will paste between the two quote marks that I talk about there.<p>

    If you have questions, please post them here instead of emailing me directly. Either I or others who are much smarter than me can respond with answers for all to see.

  2. I follow ya. I actually thought there was a way to do it, too. The

    link we have now is simply a script with everything after the

    question mark being the parameters to the script. What we need to be

    able to do is point to the actual image file which may not be (any

    longer) possible.

  3. 1) blurry item in foreground, probably a rattler;<br>

    2) horrible lighting, i.e. shadows on faces;<br>

    3) vignetting, probably wrong lens shade;<br>

    4) hand out of frame;<br>

    5) view point, i.e. looking straight down;<br>

    6) boring background;<br>

    7) excessive contrast/muddy/poor development?;<br>

    8) poor composition, i.e. centered;

    <p>

    I just love how the one in the middle is holding the arm of the one to

    the left. Extremely cute!

  4. The important thing to know is that you have to have your image(s)

    hosted somewhere on the web already, either on a site of your own, or

    at some image hosting service like photo.net. If you can point to

    your image with your browser, you can post it here. Let me know if I

    can be of any assistance at all.

  5. Oops. My last sentence didn't come out right. I'm interested in

    your work! Please know that! It's this actual photograph that has

    left me basically disinterested. Please don't take that wrong. One

    great thing about this photograph is that you posted it, which is a

    heck of a lot better than I've been doing lately. How about some

    more.

  6. About the young man, this photograph makes me feel like he was simply

    asked to remove his shirt and stand still for a few moments while

    being photographed. The photograph has barely any impact on me. The

    subject is engaged in nothing; his expression is blank; the background

    is studio-esque and boring; his posture is impatient. If this was a

    fashion shot for perhaps the belt, then I'm not compelled to go out

    and buy the belt.<p>

    Digital: If this is a photograph to test film, nothing can be judged

    from viewing only this marginal quality scan. I'm not convinced that

    optics or film can be properly judged from a jpeg, anyway, unless

    there is something particularly extraordinary about one or both. From

    the artifacts, particularly on his arms, I believe the photograph is

    sharp, it's just the scan makes it look unsharp.<p>

    Composition: Pretty good!<p>

    Technically, I think the contrast is ever so slightly high to portray

    a person with so much skin showing.<p>

    Overall: The photograph almost completely fails for me. I'm not left

    wondering or asking or hanging or amazed or interested.<p>

    Respectfully submitted, however.

  7. For as warm as its tone is, this is image is so cool. Love the

    off-level framing and cold, simple, <b>bold</b> brick background.

    Beautiful composition and image toning. Love the expression and

    shadow detail. Love the cigar, but I think it ought to have been lit,

    or at least showing some smoke for effect. This guy... I

    wouldn't even mess with his image, much less him. I'll have

    a nightmare, thank you: my last lifely view before being

    stabbed in this cold, dark alley. Excellent work! I'm impressed with

    this one.

  8. The photograph is interesting, by the way. I like how all the people

    are blurry yet the viewer knows it's a field of people. It reminds me

    of how artists draw crowds. It also reminds me somewhat of a famous

    Eisenstaedt (sp?) photograph. It could perhaps use a touch more

    printing contrast.

  9. Jeff, you had it perfect on your second try except that you left of

    part of the URL from the photo.net site, i.e. the size=lg parameter.

    <p>

    Your first try was OK except that you didn't leave a space between the

    IMG and the SRC key words.<p>

    What I do first is go to the actual image and display it on the

    browser. This has the effect of producing the actaul URL

    automatically to reduce typing and the chance for error. Then

    highlight the URL in the Location: field, and do a Ctrl-C to copy the

    address into the paste buffer. Then in the body of my post I type

    <img src=""> after which I move the cursor to the second " mark

    and press Ctrl-V to paste the address between the quote marks.

  10. <i>As our board grows :-) so does the number of uncategorized questions :-(<p>

    Please try to pick a good category for your initial posts. Categorizing your threads is especially useful for other members seeking knowledge because there is no other way to search but to browse the categories.<p>

    Please do NOT categorize your post if you can't easily fit it into a pre-existing category. Better for it to be uncategorized than to be hidden within the wrong category.<p>

    Thanks to all!<p>

    Yer humble modagorizer...</i>

  11. What is interesting to me is how real the clown-head looks - at

    first glance - when next to the child's or as it appears between the

    spectators. There is a bit of tension due to whatever it is the child

    is concentrating on being hidden from view. The child can also appear

    hidden among the stuffed animals above her. This is one time that

    I might suggest a wider area of view to show more details

    surrounding the child and clown, and thus maybe increase the "hidden

    child factor." My summary: The photograph isn't a really strong one,

    but it does have some interesting elements.

  12. She is quite beautiful, and she is also beautiful as a subject of

    photography. However (and I continue based just on personal

    ramblings and with the greatest of respect), baby shots such as these

    lack strength because their facial expressions and overall facial

    character can't often portray personality, happiness, sorrow, thought

    processes, or life experiences to the degree that portraits of older

    subjects do. The photograph of the FSA migrant mother comes to mind

    as an example, although an extreme comparison. My point is, I guess,

    when you look at a baby shot, it's like "OK, cute kid. Shot looking

    straight down. Kid's probably thinking, 'What the heck is Dad doing

    now?,'" but so what? I will say that the look in her eyes seems to be

    that she is preoccupied or seriously considering something. My own

    feeling is that if you're going for a strong, evokative, emotional, or

    controversial (etc...) statement kind of photograph, you're are trying

    the impossible or at least the impractical. But keep taking

    photographs of her. The kind of shots that you will end up will be

    much more important to you than "strong, evokative" photography any

    day!

  13. I'm not much of a judge of studio portrait work, but I think this is a

    really nice portrait. I do like her gaze without the catchlights,

    though. But if you hadn't mentioned it, I definitely wouldn't have

    even noticed them missing. Its tonality seems a bit harsh - a tad

    contrasty for such a pretty face - lacking in some of those rich,

    subtle tonal gradations that we often like to see in studio style

    portraits such as this. Some bright spots in her face that seem too

    bright. The metal object, held with her slightly visible hand is a

    bit distracting with its bright spot. Other than a couple of knuckles

    popping up in the bottom, I think the composition is perfect.

  14. I sometimes jump right in with a response to posted work, and

    sometimes I spend some time going back to it. It has been difficult

    to word a critique (or whatever you want to call it) for this

    photograph, probably because it's kind of "quirky." This photograph

    has some elements which are notable, the primary one being that the

    only three people within the frame seem to have ducked away from being

    photographed. Ordinarily, this may detract from the appeal of the

    photo, but this time I'm not sure. Another thing is I have absolutely

    no idea what anybody is doing. Anyway, I love trains, so anything

    with a train in it is a good photo in my book.

  15. I believe there is some discussion on photo.net about using ROR to clean lenses. What I want to know is the concensus of Leica users. Is it safe, or should I just have some single-malt and breath on them? I hardly EVER clean my lenses, preferring instead to just keep them clean by using lens caps, and a quick, short, and soft blast of compressed air every once in a while. But, still, sometimes a crud accumulates. I was thinking about Kodak Lens Cleaning tissues with a bit of ROR. What say you all?
  16. ...and clean the finger prints off yer monitor!<p>

    This is where digital presentation starts to fail because there are

    practically no standards for gamma/brightness/blah blah, and you can't

    expect your audience to go reaching for the knobs of their carefully

    calibrated monitors.<p>

    However, comma, I think these would be splendid as FB 11x14s (to show

    grain) mounted and inspectable from a fairly close distance.

    Interesting stuff.

×
×
  • Create New...