-
Posts
2,036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Tony Rowlett
-
-
OK, it worked. When you right click on the image (while viewing it on
the photo.net page and select Display Image, you get a different URL
which includes "image-display" which seems independent from all the
photo.net gobble-de-gook.<p>
Very cool image, by the way.
-
OK, this is a test. This might work. What I did was right click on
the iamge, select "display image", and it got me to a page with just
the image and no other stuff like the copyrights. Here I go:
<p>
<center><img
src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=247176&size=l
g">
</center>
-
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.
-
I'd say to just make it a hyperlink with the "a" tag, i.e. like
<a
href="http://www.photo.net/photo/247176&size=lg">http
://www.photo.net/photo/247176&size=lg</a>.
-
Other threads ask about negative scanners that include sizes beyond the 35mm format. What is the best quality for 35mm only?
-
For some reason your alert was listed under "disabled" so I reenabled
it. Should work OK, but if not, let me know.
-
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!
-
The thing about this photograph for me is the way it punches me upon
viewing it. It's very three-dimensional. It's like I'm sitting right
behind this guy, and I want to move over. Interesting effect.
-
<b>feral</b> - <i>adj</i> - of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild
animal.<p>
Thanks for that! Great word.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When specifying "CLA," would Leica service repair everything that was possibliy wrong with an item, or would I have to be more specific?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's Jeff's image:<p>
<CENTER>
<img
src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=194634&size=l
g">
</center>
-
<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>
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
...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.
LESSON: Adding your images from photo.net
in Leica and Rangefinders
Posted
<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.