Re: Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. otter

    otter Guest

    On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, PeterN <> wrote:

    >
    > > Otter:
    > > Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
    > > time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
    > > the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

    >
    > I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
    > river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.


    The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
    sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind. I was
    going for some kind of metaphysical statement. But I can see how you
    might think they are just a boat and a football field.
     
    otter, Sep 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/14/2011 11:10 PM, otter wrote:
    > On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>> Otter:
    >>> Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
    >>> time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
    >>> the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

    >>
    >> I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
    >> river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.

    >
    > The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
    > sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind. I was
    > going for some kind of metaphysical statement. But I can see how you
    > might think they are just a boat and a football field.



    They certainly contribute a lot to your composition. For my taste the
    river light is just too bright. However, if you as the maker feel
    otherwise, that is the ultimate decision.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 16, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    otter Guest

    On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 9/14/2011 11:10 PM, otter wrote:
    >
    > > On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, PeterN<>  wrote:

    >
    > >>> Otter:
    > >>> Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
    > >>> time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
    > >>> the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

    >
    > >> I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
    > >> river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.

    >
    > > The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
    > > sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind.  I was
    > > going for some kind of metaphysical statement.  But I can see how you
    > > might think they are just a boat and a football field.

    >
    > They certainly contribute a lot to your composition. For my taste the
    > river light is just too bright. However, if you as the maker feel
    > otherwise, that is the ultimate decision.
    >


    Thanks for the input, I might try to tone the boat light down a little
    to see what it looks like. But in my mind it is not a distraction.
    It is meant to grab your attention. I had this weird idea of the boat
    representing a prodigal son coming home, or a seeker searching for
    enlightenment. And I do realize that is just all inside my head. :)
     
    otter, Sep 16, 2011
    #3
  4. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 1:22 AM, otter wrote:
    > On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 9/14/2011 11:10 PM, otter wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, PeterN<> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Otter:
    >>>>> Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
    >>>>> time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
    >>>>> the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

    >>
    >>>> I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
    >>>> river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.

    >>
    >>> The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
    >>> sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind. I was
    >>> going for some kind of metaphysical statement. But I can see how you
    >>> might think they are just a boat and a football field.

    >>
    >> They certainly contribute a lot to your composition. For my taste the
    >> river light is just too bright. However, if you as the maker feel
    >> otherwise, that is the ultimate decision.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for the input, I might try to tone the boat light down a little
    > to see what it looks like. But in my mind it is not a distraction.
    > It is meant to grab your attention. I had this weird idea of the boat
    > representing a prodigal son coming home, or a seeker searching for
    > enlightenment. And I do realize that is just all inside my head. :)


    Not at all a weird idea. We have too many mundane images. Go with your
    imagination. Please don't slavishly follow anyone's comments. Just
    consider them and adopt pieces to the extent they are compatible with
    you taste. I try to make my images mine.
    I think that art photography is both an art and a craft.
    On the art side: What I learn from others, is primarily inspiration.
    On the craft side, technique.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 16, 2011
    #4
  5. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-09-16 11:51:19 +0100, PeterN said:

    > On 9/16/2011 1:22 AM, otter wrote:
    >> On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >>> On 9/14/2011 11:10 PM, otter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> Otter:
    >>>>>> Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
    >>>>>> time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
    >>>>>> the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.
    >>>
    >>>>> I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
    >>>>> river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.
    >>>
    >>>> The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
    >>>> sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind. I was
    >>>> going for some kind of metaphysical statement. But I can see how you
    >>>> might think they are just a boat and a football field.
    >>>
    >>> They certainly contribute a lot to your composition. For my taste the
    >>> river light is just too bright. However, if you as the maker feel
    >>> otherwise, that is the ultimate decision.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thanks for the input, I might try to tone the boat light down a little
    >> to see what it looks like. But in my mind it is not a distraction.
    >> It is meant to grab your attention. I had this weird idea of the boat
    >> representing a prodigal son coming home, or a seeker searching for
    >> enlightenment. And I do realize that is just all inside my head. :)

    >
    > Not at all a weird idea. We have too many mundane images. Go with your
    > imagination. Please don't slavishly follow anyone's comments. Just
    > consider them and adopt pieces to the extent they are compatible with
    > you taste. I try to make my images mine.
    > I think that art photography is both an art and a craft.
    > On the art side: What I learn from others, is primarily inspiration.
    > On the craft side, technique.


    Seconded.

    When I comment on SI submissions I attempt to separate the art from the
    craft. For surreal images (my favourite kind), I assume that the artist
    "got their art right" therefore I can indicate only my appreciation of
    the art. If I don't like it, be pleased. Surreal art is supposed to
    provoke a reaction, it is irrelevant whether the reaction is positive
    or negative. The art is a failure only when everyone says "It's OK."

    If I dislike, or do not understand, the art, I try to put that aside
    while I think of technical aspects that may be detracting from the art.

    My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    critique the works of others? Why don't I just submit images then sit
    back and learn from the experience of others? Because, I never want my
    art, or anyone else's, to be "designed by committee."

    Each of us is an adherent of some photographic rules. I'm obsessed with
    bokeh, horizons, vanishing points, optical illusions, chroma noise,
    distracting dots/lines, and tone - the distribution of levels in terms
    of both contrast and colour. Yet for the life of me I can't learn to
    frame or compose an image.

    Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot
    more useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    learnt from camera clubs :)

    I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
    writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
    rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
    displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front
    cover of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious
    journal; to be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a
    giant poster on display in a shop or on billboard?

    You all must be sick to death of me harping on about this: a digital
    image is not a finished product, the rendering of it is out of our
    control. If you give me a perfect image and I display it on a shit
    monitor, it will look terrible. If you send me a beautifully framed
    print, designed to look its best under carefully controlled
    incandescent lighting (a studio or gallery) it will look shit hanging
    on my bedroom wall illuminated by cold North-East afternoon light.

    The oft-forgotten aspect of "rendering intent" is the appropriate
    rendition of sharpness throughout an image to match the visual acuity
    of the viewer. Nature has fine detail from the macro right down to the
    micro: the outline of a forest should be sharp as should be the fine
    detail in each leaf. Even a 60 MP camera isn't going to record that
    range. Visual acuity peaks around 7 to 9 line-pairs per degree and
    drops to almost zero by 30 (20/20 vision). Unlike an painter, a
    photographer has to juggle with depth-of-field, diffraction, camera
    resolution, available light, dynamic range, and noise. If the
    photographer does not know the rendering intent for the image then it
    is impossible to select "best" values for ISO, aperture and shutter
    speed, let alone select or purchase his/her best lens for the job.
    Examples:

    1. A windmill in the mist does not need a camera and lens combination
    that has 12 f-stops of dynamic range and the last word in spatial
    resolution; it requires a combination that is extraordinarily good at
    resolving micro-contrast and subtleties of colour.

    2. Resolving every defect in a model's face is not "good photography."

    3. A section of picket fence as the main subject should look sharp, but
    the fine detail in the surrounding grass or gravel should not look
    sharp. Such a shot requires an image with high MTF at mid frequencies
    and low MTF at high frequencies. The definition of "mid" and "high"
    spatial frequencies must coincide with the visual acuity of the viewer,
    not a lens-test MTF chart.
     
    Pete A, Sep 16, 2011
    #5
  6. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 11:28 AM, Pete A wrote:
    <snip>

    > When I comment on SI submissions I attempt to separate the art from the
    > craft. For surreal images (my favourite kind), I assume that the artist
    > "got their art right" therefore I can indicate only my appreciation of
    > the art. If I don't like it, be pleased. Surreal art is supposed to
    > provoke a reaction, it is irrelevant whether the reaction is positive or
    > negative. The art is a failure only when everyone says "It's OK."



    It would be a dull world if we all liked the same thing. I have never
    liked or appreciated Van Eyck, but millions of others do.


    >
    > If I dislike, or do not understand, the art, I try to put that aside
    > while I think of technical aspects that may be detracting from the art.


    When I comment on technical aspects, I try to express what I think would
    enhance, not change the image I think the maker intended.

    >
    > My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    > totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    > critique the works of others?


    As a sentient human you have opinions, likes and dislikes. You clearly
    have the right to express your opinions. And as a contribution to the
    art world, perhaps an obligation.


    >Why don't I just submit images then sit
    > back and learn from the experience of others? Because, I never want my
    > art, or anyone else's, to be "designed by committee."


    Nor should it ever be.

    >
    > Each of us is an adherent of some photographic rules. I'm obsessed with
    > bokeh, horizons, vanishing points, optical illusions, chroma noise,
    > distracting dots/lines, and tone - the distribution of levels in terms
    > of both contrast and colour. Yet for the life of me I can't learn to
    > frame or compose an image.
    >


    Practice, practice, practice. ;-)

    > Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    > useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    > photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    > learnt from camera clubs :)
    >

    Depends on the club.
    Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must understand
    the rules before one can break them successfully.


    > I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
    > writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
    > rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
    > displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front cover
    > of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious journal; to
    > be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a giant poster
    > on display in a shop or on billboard?
    >



    Agreed. Yet a good image will sell itself.

    > You all must be sick to death of me harping on about this: a digital
    > image is not a finished product, the rendering of it is out of our
    > control. If you give me a perfect image and I display it on a shit
    > monitor, it will look terrible. If you send me a beautifully framed
    > print, designed to look its best under carefully controlled incandescent
    > lighting (a studio or gallery) it will look shit hanging on my bedroom
    > wall illuminated by cold North-East afternoon light.
    >
    > The oft-forgotten aspect of "rendering intent" is the appropriate
    > rendition of sharpness throughout an image to match the visual acuity of
    > the viewer. Nature has fine detail from the macro right down to the
    > micro: the outline of a forest should be sharp as should be the fine
    > detail in each leaf. Even a 60 MP camera isn't going to record that
    > range. Visual acuity peaks around 7 to 9 line-pairs per degree and drops
    > to almost zero by 30 (20/20 vision). Unlike an painter, a photographer
    > has to juggle with depth-of-field, diffraction, camera resolution,
    > available light, dynamic range, and noise. If the photographer does not
    > know the rendering intent for the image then it is impossible to select
    > "best" values for ISO, aperture and shutter speed, let alone select or
    > purchase his/her best lens for the job. Examples:
    >
    > 1. A windmill in the mist does not need a camera and lens combination
    > that has 12 f-stops of dynamic range and the last word in spatial
    > resolution; it requires a combination that is extraordinarily good at
    > resolving micro-contrast and subtleties of colour.
    >
    > 2. Resolving every defect in a model's face is not "good photography."


    True, but it may be good marketing.

    >
    > 3. A section of picket fence as the main subject should look sharp, but
    > the fine detail in the surrounding grass or gravel should not look
    > sharp. Such a shot requires an image with high MTF at mid frequencies
    > and low MTF at high frequencies. The definition of "mid" and "high"
    > spatial frequencies must coincide with the visual acuity of the viewer,
    > not a lens-test MTF chart.
    >



    Why?

    Is it really necessary for are to follow rules. That last paragraph is
    exactly the camera club system.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 16, 2011
    #6
  7. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    <> wrote:

    >My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >critique the works of others?


    This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.

    What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    else sees or brings up.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 16, 2011
    #7
  8. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-09-16 18:47:18 +0100, PeterN said:

    > On 9/16/2011 11:28 AM, Pete A wrote:
    > <snip>
    > > When I comment on SI submissions I attempt to separate the art from the
    > > craft. For surreal images (my favourite kind), I assume that the artist
    > > "got their art right" therefore I can indicate only my appreciation of
    > > the art. If I don't like it, be pleased. Surreal art is supposed to
    > > provoke a reaction, it is irrelevant whether the reaction is positive or
    > > negative. The art is a failure only when everyone says "It's OK."

    >
    > It would be a dull world if we all liked the same thing. I have never
    > liked or appreciated Van Eyck, but millions of others do.


    Agreed.

    > > If I dislike, or do not understand, the art, I try to put that aside
    > > while I think of technical aspects that may be detracting from the art.

    >
    > When I comment on technical aspects, I try to express what I think
    > would enhance, not change the image I think the maker intended.


    Agreed.

    > > My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    > > totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    > > critique the works of others?

    >
    > As a sentient human you have opinions, likes and dislikes. You clearly
    > have the right to express your opinions. And as a contribution to the
    > art world, perhaps an obligation.


    I try to keep my rights on the back burner and concentrate on
    promoting/enhacing/encouraging the artistic talents of others.

    > >Why don't I just submit images then sit
    > > back and learn from the experience of others? Because, I never want my
    > > art, or anyone else's, to be "designed by committee."

    >
    > Nor should it ever be.


    :)

    > > Each of us is an adherent of some photographic rules. I'm obsessed with
    > > bokeh, horizons, vanishing points, optical illusions, chroma noise,
    > > distracting dots/lines, and tone - the distribution of levels in terms
    > > of both contrast and colour. Yet for the life of me I can't learn to
    > > frame or compose an image.

    >
    > Practice, practice, practice. ;-)


    The only thing I cannot tolerate about my condition is how it prohibits
    me from doing just that. I'm sick to death of photographing the inside
    of my house and back garden.

    > > Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    > > useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    > > photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    > > learnt from camera clubs :)

    >
    > Depends on the club.
    > Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    > competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must
    > understand the rules before one can break them successfully.


    True. Currently, my choice of club is only one and it has been made
    clear to me that I am not welcome because my style, my success with it,
    and my ambitions for it, do not fit the club's purposes. Good, that
    means I'm not subservient enough to be a member therefore I'm free to
    express myself in my own way. I have no wish to win its monthly
    competitions nor spend a fortune on its away trips. I'd love to see its
    annual financial report to the collector of taxes...

    > > I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
    > > writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
    > > rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
    > > displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front cover
    > > of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious journal; to
    > > be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a giant poster
    > > on display in a shop or on billboard?

    >
    > Agreed. Yet a good image will sell itself.


    Of course, but if depth-of-field, for instance, is an important part of
    the image then it will sell only if it is suitable for its final
    purpose. Abstract art has a huge advantage in marketing.

    > [...]
    >> > 1. A windmill in the mist does not need a camera and lens combination
    >> > that has 12 f-stops of dynamic range and the last word in spatial
    >> > resolution; it requires a combination that is extraordinarily good at
    >> > resolving micro-contrast and subtleties of colour.
    >> >
    >> > 2. Resolving every defect in a model's face is not "good photography."

    >
    > True, but it may be good marketing.


    2. Only for beauty commercials as the "before" shot. Likewise for the
    porn industry. I've never met someone who actually wants every skin
    pore and blemish to be depicted in a photo. Fortunately, I've never met
    a reseller who has asked for those details to be shown.

    > > 3. A section of picket fence as the main subject should look sharp, but
    > > the fine detail in the surrounding grass or gravel should not look
    > > sharp. Such a shot requires an image with high MTF at mid frequencies
    > > and low MTF at high frequencies. The definition of "mid" and "high"
    > > spatial frequencies must coincide with the visual acuity of the viewer,
    > > not a lens-test MTF chart.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Is it really necessary for are to follow rules. That last paragraph is
    > exactly the camera club system.


    3. That was my inept condensation of documents from Hasselblad, Nikon,
    and Zeiss, which clearly explain the interaction between visual acuity,
    lens plus camera performance, and reproduction ratio in terms of MTF,
    spherical aberration, close-range-correction and many other technical
    aspects of photographic imaging. These aren't artistic rules, these are
    the limits of human biology, physics and optical design trade-offs in
    the domain in which we have to work with as photographers. Traditional
    artists are completely free of the chains that bind us as photographers.
     
    Pete A, Sep 16, 2011
    #8
  9. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:47:18 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > > Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    > > useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    > > photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    > > learnt from camera clubs :)
    > >

    >Depends on the club.
    >Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    >competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must understand
    >the rules before one can break them successfully.
    >


    Every camera club is different, but my time has been well-spent
    attending the meetings. I've learned more about what *not* to do than
    what I should do.

    The critiques bring out the flaws more than they compliment the good
    aspects. When you see how a photograph can be improved by cropping,
    you learn not include the extraneous in the next submission. In
    general, you learn *why* a particular photograph isn't as pleasing as
    you think it should be or why the judges aren't pleased with it.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 16, 2011
    #9
  10. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 3:48 PM, Pete A wrote:
    > On 2011-09-16 18:47:18 +0100, PeterN said:

    <snip>

    >> As a sentient human you have opinions, likes and dislikes. You clearly
    >> have the right to express your opinions. And as a contribution to the
    >> art world, perhaps an obligation.

    >
    > I try to keep my rights on the back burner and concentrate on
    > promoting/enhacing/encouraging the artistic talents of others.


    Then you should comment, freely. That doesn't mean you should tell
    someone that their work is a POS, but you certainly are articulate
    enough to make a helpful comment. You could even say" "I don't know why
    you took that picture." There are some images that are well exposed, but
    just don't do anything.

    >


    >
    >> > Each of us is an adherent of some photographic rules. I'm obsessed with
    >> > bokeh, horizons, vanishing points, optical illusions, chroma noise,
    >> > distracting dots/lines, and tone - the distribution of levels in terms
    >> > of both contrast and colour. Yet for the life of me I can't learn to
    >> > frame or compose an image.

    >>
    >> Practice, practice, practice. ;-)

    >
    > The only thing I cannot tolerate about my condition is how it prohibits
    > me from doing just that. I'm sick to death of photographing the inside
    > of my house and back garden.



    From what I've seen of your work, it is pretty good. that others ask
    you do do, even volunteer work speaks volumes that your work is
    appreciated. Please don't get back into a self pity mode. If you're
    stuck in your living room, rearrange the furniture. ;-)

    >
    >> > Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot

    >> more
    >> > useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    >> > photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    >> > learnt from camera clubs :)

    >>
    >> Depends on the club.
    >> Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    >> competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must
    >> understand the rules before one can break them successfully.

    >
    > True. Currently, my choice of club is only one and it has been made
    > clear to me that I am not welcome because my style, my success with it,
    > and my ambitions for it, do not fit the club's purposes. Good, that
    > means I'm not subservient enough to be a member therefore I'm free to
    > express myself in my own way. I have no wish to win its monthly
    > competitions nor spend a fortune on its away trips. I'd love to see its
    > annual financial report to the collector of taxes...
    >


    Sadly, some clubs are like that. If mine was, I would not be a member
    either. Yes, we have competitions. As an example: Sunday breakfast and
    field trip, to a local event. We have 62 members. 15 showed up for
    breakfast.
    Tuesday, we went on a sunset boat ride. about 20 were present.
    Thursday, a presentation on Layers by one of our members.

    Here is a link to our website:
    <http://www.syossetcc.org/>


    >> > I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
    >> > writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
    >> > rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
    >> > displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front

    >> cover
    >> > of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious journal; to
    >> > be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a giant poster
    >> > on display in a shop or on billboard?

    >>
    >> Agreed. Yet a good image will sell itself.

    >
    > Of course, but if depth-of-field, for instance, is an important part of
    > the image then it will sell only if it is suitable for its final
    > purpose. Abstract art has a huge advantage in marketing.
    >


    I advertising, the client makes the final decision. the shot is really
    made by the creative director. the photographer only trips the shutter.

    >> [...]
    >>> > 1. A windmill in the mist does not need a camera and lens combination
    >>> > that has 12 f-stops of dynamic range and the last word in spatial
    >>> > resolution; it requires a combination that is extraordinarily good at
    >>> > resolving micro-contrast and subtleties of colour.
    >>> >
    >>> > 2. Resolving every defect in a model's face is not "good photography."

    >>
    >> True, but it may be good marketing.

    >
    > 2. Only for beauty commercials as the "before" shot. Likewise for the
    > porn industry. I've never met someone who actually wants every skin pore
    > and blemish to be depicted in a photo. Fortunately, I've never met a
    > reseller who has asked for those details to be shown.



    Never head a complaint about Linda Lovelace's skin blemishes.



    >
    >> > 3. A section of picket fence as the main subject should look sharp, but
    >> > the fine detail in the surrounding grass or gravel should not look
    >> > sharp. Such a shot requires an image with high MTF at mid frequencies
    >> > and low MTF at high frequencies. The definition of "mid" and "high"
    >> > spatial frequencies must coincide with the visual acuity of the viewer,
    >> > not a lens-test MTF chart.

    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> Is it really necessary for are to follow rules. That last paragraph is
    >> exactly the camera club system.

    >
    > 3. That was my inept condensation of documents from Hasselblad, Nikon,
    > and Zeiss, which clearly explain the interaction between visual acuity,
    > lens plus camera performance, and reproduction ratio in terms of MTF,
    > spherical aberration, close-range-correction and many other technical
    > aspects of photographic imaging. These aren't artistic rules, these are
    > the limits of human biology, physics and optical design trade-offs in
    > the domain in which we have to work with as photographers. Traditional
    > artists are completely free of the chains that bind us as photographers.
    >


    fair enough.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 16, 2011
    #10
  11. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-09-16 19:08:06 +0100, tony cooper said:

    > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >> totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >> critique the works of others?

    >
    > This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    > comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    > necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.
    >
    > What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    > else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    > else sees or brings up.


    I find it very difficult to express my opinions in writing - it took me
    five hours to write my comments on the submissions to this SI. I
    enjoyed doing it and I took the time because in a previous post you
    mentioned that there was a lack of negative feedback (suggestions for
    improvement).

    Hopefully this time, I've contributed worthwhile observations from my
    areas of knowledge that will benefit others.

    The last thing I want anyone to do is degrade their work of art because
    of something I've said. In my opinion, some contributors to the SI are
    overly willing to adjust the artistic rendition of their image based on
    feedback - feedback that I strongly disagree with, but I remain silent.
    I do not wish to start an argument, furthermore, I have no empirical
    evidence for my disagreement.

    What really pisses me off is when I see budding artists who are
    compliant enough (through admirable humility) to willingly degrade
    their art based on the feedback of those who totally missed the point
    of their art.

    But, like I said, who the hell am I to make such powerful statements?
    It's just my humble opinions at the end of the day.
     
    Pete A, Sep 16, 2011
    #11
  12. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-09-16 21:33:38 +0100, PeterN said:

    > On 9/16/2011 3:48 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >> On 2011-09-16 18:47:18 +0100, PeterN said:

    > <snip>
    >
    >>> As a sentient human you have opinions, likes and dislikes. You clearly
    >>> have the right to express your opinions. And as a contribution to the
    >>> art world, perhaps an obligation.

    >>
    >> I try to keep my rights on the back burner and concentrate on
    >> promoting/enhacing/encouraging the artistic talents of others.

    >
    > Then you should comment, freely. That doesn't mean you should tell
    > someone that their work is a POS, but you certainly are articulate
    > enough to make a helpful comment. You could even say" "I don't know why
    > you took that picture." There are some images that are well exposed,
    > but just don't do anything.


    I'm learning.

    > [...]
    >> The only thing I cannot tolerate about my condition is how it prohibits
    >> me from doing just that. I'm sick to death of photographing the inside
    >> of my house and back garden.

    >
    > From what I've seen of your work, it is pretty good. that others ask
    > you do do, even volunteer work speaks volumes that your work is
    > appreciated.


    Thanks very much for that.

    > Please don't get back into a self pity mode. If you're stuck in your
    > living room, rearrange the furniture. ;-)


    You are so right. I haven't rearranged the furniture yet, but I have
    said goodbye to a close friend because I realized she was fuelling my
    self-doubts. I don't know why I still attract people like that into my
    life. At least she was damned good looking and wasn't just good in the
    kitchen.

    > [...]
    > Sadly, some clubs are like that. If mine was, I would not be a member
    > either. Yes, we have competitions. As an example: Sunday breakfast and
    > field trip, to a local event. We have 62 members. 15 showed up for
    > breakfast.
    > Tuesday, we went on a sunset boat ride. about 20 were present.
    > Thursday, a presentation on Layers by one of our members.
    >
    > Here is a link to our website:
    > <http://www.syossetcc.org/>


    That sounds great. I've had three people suggest I should start a
    camera club completely separate from our local one, meaning, mine
    should be geared towards novices having fun, with photography as a
    secondary interest. I'm not quite up to organising that, but I'll have
    a go at coercing the able-bodied enthusiasts to start something.

    > [...]
    >> 2. Only for beauty commercials as the "before" shot. Likewise for the
    >> porn industry. I've never met someone who actually wants every skin pore
    >> and blemish to be depicted in a photo. Fortunately, I've never met a
    >> reseller who has asked for those details to be shown.

    >
    > Never head a complaint about Linda Lovelace's skin blemishes.


    I could write an essay about such things, but that would be off topic
    and of no interests to any of you ;-)
     
    Pete A, Sep 17, 2011
    #12
  13. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 4:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:47:18 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    >>> useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    >>> photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    >>> learnt from camera clubs :)
    >>>

    >> Depends on the club.
    >> Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    >> competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must understand
    >> the rules before one can break them successfully.
    >>

    >
    > Every camera club is different, but my time has been well-spent
    > attending the meetings. I've learned more about what *not* to do than
    > what I should do.
    >
    > The critiques bring out the flaws more than they compliment the good
    > aspects. When you see how a photograph can be improved by cropping,
    > you learn not include the extraneous in the next submission. In
    > general, you learn *why* a particular photograph isn't as pleasing as
    > you think it should be or why the judges aren't pleased with it.
    >

    We try to emphasize the positive. Having said that, sometimes a critique
    must be harsh. Last night, after the formal presentation was over we
    continued the discussion with the presenter, for about another hour. We
    learned additional refinement of the technique in that hour.

    I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
    takes longer to read, than do:
    Duplicate the base layer;
    blur it: filter! blur ! average;
    create a curve adjustment layer'
    click on the center eye dropper and touch it to the blurred layer. It
    will turn 18% gray'

    delete the blurred layer and the base image will reflect the gray point
    setting;
    then set your black and white points.
    Note: this also works well with a levels adjustment layer.





    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2011
    #13
  14. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 5:28 PM, Pete A wrote:
    > On 2011-09-16 19:08:06 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >>> totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >>> critique the works of others?

    >>
    >> This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    >> comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    >> necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.
    >>
    >> What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    >> else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    >> else sees or brings up.

    >
    > I find it very difficult to express my opinions in writing - it took me
    > five hours to write my comments on the submissions to this SI. I enjoyed
    > doing it and I took the time because in a previous post you mentioned
    > that there was a lack of negative feedback (suggestions for improvement).
    >
    > Hopefully this time, I've contributed worthwhile observations from my
    > areas of knowledge that will benefit others.
    >
    > The last thing I want anyone to do is degrade their work of art because
    > of something I've said. In my opinion, some contributors to the SI are
    > overly willing to adjust the artistic rendition of their image based on
    > feedback - feedback that I strongly disagree with, but I remain silent.
    > I do not wish to start an argument, furthermore, I have no empirical
    > evidence for my disagreement.
    >
    > What really pisses me off is when I see budding artists who are
    > compliant enough (through admirable humility) to willingly degrade their
    > art based on the feedback of those who totally missed the point of their
    > art.
    >
    > But, like I said, who the hell am I to make such powerful statements?
    > It's just my humble opinions at the end of the day.
    >


    Don't confuse humility with a lack of self confidence.
    I try to make it clear, that my comments are only my opinion and the
    artist should not take them literally, but should merely consider them.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2011
    #14
  15. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 7:28 PM, Pete A wrote:
    > On 2011-09-16 21:33:38 +0100, PeterN said:
    >
    >> On 9/16/2011 3:48 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >>> On 2011-09-16 18:47:18 +0100, PeterN said:

    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>> As a sentient human you have opinions, likes and dislikes. You clearly
    >>>> have the right to express your opinions. And as a contribution to the
    >>>> art world, perhaps an obligation.
    >>>
    >>> I try to keep my rights on the back burner and concentrate on
    >>> promoting/enhacing/encouraging the artistic talents of others.

    >>
    >> Then you should comment, freely. That doesn't mean you should tell
    >> someone that their work is a POS, but you certainly are articulate
    >> enough to make a helpful comment. You could even say" "I don't know
    >> why you took that picture." There are some images that are well
    >> exposed, but just don't do anything.

    >
    > I'm learning.
    >
    >> [...]
    >>> The only thing I cannot tolerate about my condition is how it prohibits
    >>> me from doing just that. I'm sick to death of photographing the inside
    >>> of my house and back garden.

    >>
    >> From what I've seen of your work, it is pretty good. that others ask
    >> you do do, even volunteer work speaks volumes that your work is
    >> appreciated.

    >
    > Thanks very much for that.
    >
    >> Please don't get back into a self pity mode. If you're stuck in your
    >> living room, rearrange the furniture. ;-)

    >
    > You are so right. I haven't rearranged the furniture yet, but I have
    > said goodbye to a close friend because I realized she was fuelling my
    > self-doubts. I don't know why I still attract people like that into my
    > life. At least she was damned good looking and wasn't just good in the
    > kitchen.
    >
    >> [...]
    >> Sadly, some clubs are like that. If mine was, I would not be a member
    >> either. Yes, we have competitions. As an example: Sunday breakfast and
    >> field trip, to a local event. We have 62 members. 15 showed up for
    >> breakfast.
    >> Tuesday, we went on a sunset boat ride. about 20 were present.
    >> Thursday, a presentation on Layers by one of our members.
    >>
    >> Here is a link to our website:
    >> <http://www.syossetcc.org/>

    >
    > That sounds great. I've had three people suggest I should start a camera
    > club completely separate from our local one, meaning, mine should be
    > geared towards novices having fun, with photography as a secondary
    > interest. I'm not quite up to organising that, but I'll have a go at
    > coercing the able-bodied enthusiasts to start something.
    >
    >> [...]
    >>> 2. Only for beauty commercials as the "before" shot. Likewise for the
    >>> porn industry. I've never met someone who actually wants every skin pore
    >>> and blemish to be depicted in a photo. Fortunately, I've never met a
    >>> reseller who has asked for those details to be shown.

    >>
    >> Never head a complaint about Linda Lovelace's skin blemishes.


    My above typo was not intentional, but I guess could be Freudian.
    It should have read: "I never heard a complaint....?

    > I could write an essay about such things, but that would be off topic
    > and of no interests to any of you ;-)
    >



    About 40 years ago I had a client who made soft porn movies. It would be
    impossible to make up those stories. The owner/producer did not think it
    funny, when the photographer shot two black porn stars on a dark brown
    couch and you couldn't see what they were doing. When he told me, I
    started laughing so hard I couldn't stop. I only mentioned it because is
    a good practical lesson in subject separation for a photography group.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2011
    #15
  16. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 7:28 PM, Pete A wrote:


    <snip>

    > That sounds great. I've had three people suggest I should start a camera
    > club completely separate from our local one, meaning, mine should be
    > geared towards novices having fun, with photography as a secondary
    > interest. I'm not quite up to organising that, but I'll have a go at
    > coercing the able-bodied enthusiasts to start something.
    >

    It takes a lot of work and a great deal of commitment to run even a
    small CC. If you are not sure you can do it, don't. It's too easy to get
    nice people mad at you, for your good intentions.




    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2011
    #16
  17. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:12:02 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 9/16/2011 4:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:47:18 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    >>>> useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    >>>> photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    >>>> learnt from camera clubs :)
    >>>>
    >>> Depends on the club.
    >>> Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    >>> competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must understand
    >>> the rules before one can break them successfully.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Every camera club is different, but my time has been well-spent
    >> attending the meetings. I've learned more about what *not* to do than
    >> what I should do.
    >>
    >> The critiques bring out the flaws more than they compliment the good
    >> aspects. When you see how a photograph can be improved by cropping,
    >> you learn not include the extraneous in the next submission. In
    >> general, you learn *why* a particular photograph isn't as pleasing as
    >> you think it should be or why the judges aren't pleased with it.
    >>

    >We try to emphasize the positive.


    Who "we"? Our critiques are from at least one, if not two, non-member
    judges and one or two member judges. The images are graded without
    the grader knowing who shot the image.

    All the judges usually (but not always) compliment the image one way
    or the other, but then they say why it was a 7 instead of a 10.



    >
    >I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
    >takes longer to read, than do:
    >Duplicate the base layer;
    >blur it: filter! blur ! average;
    >create a curve adjustment layer'
    >click on the center eye dropper and touch it to the blurred layer. It
    >will turn 18% gray'
    >
    >delete the blurred layer and the base image will reflect the gray point
    >setting;
    >then set your black and white points.
    >Note: this also works well with a levels adjustment layer.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 17, 2011
    #17
  18. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2011 11:36 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:12:02 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 9/16/2011 4:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:47:18 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    >>>>> useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    >>>>> photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    >>>>> learnt from camera clubs :)
    >>>>>
    >>>> Depends on the club.
    >>>> Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    >>>> competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must understand
    >>>> the rules before one can break them successfully.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Every camera club is different, but my time has been well-spent
    >>> attending the meetings. I've learned more about what *not* to do than
    >>> what I should do.
    >>>
    >>> The critiques bring out the flaws more than they compliment the good
    >>> aspects. When you see how a photograph can be improved by cropping,
    >>> you learn not include the extraneous in the next submission. In
    >>> general, you learn *why* a particular photograph isn't as pleasing as
    >>> you think it should be or why the judges aren't pleased with it.
    >>>

    >> We try to emphasize the positive.

    >
    > Who "we"? Our critiques are from at least one, if not two, non-member
    > judges and one or two member judges. The images are graded without
    > the grader knowing who shot the image.
    >
    > All the judges usually (but not always) compliment the image one way
    > or the other, but then they say why it was a 7 instead of a 10.
    >


    While we have competitions using outside judges, we also have critiques
    by members, which are not scored as competitions.


    >
    >
    >>
    >> I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
    >> takes longer to read, than do:
    >> Duplicate the base layer;
    >> blur it: filter! blur ! average;
    >> create a curve adjustment layer'
    >> click on the center eye dropper and touch it to the blurred layer. It
    >> will turn 18% gray'
    >>
    >> delete the blurred layer and the base image will reflect the gray point
    >> setting;
    >> then set your black and white points.
    >> Note: this also works well with a levels adjustment layer.

    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2011
    #18
  19. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-09-17 02:57:42 +0100, PeterN said:

    > [...]
    > About 40 years ago I had a client who made soft porn movies. It would
    > be impossible to make up those stories. The owner/producer did not
    > think it funny, when the photographer shot two black porn stars on a
    > dark brown couch and you couldn't see what they were doing. When he
    > told me, I started laughing so hard I couldn't stop. I only mentioned
    > it because is a good practical lesson in subject separation for a
    > photography group.


    Hilarious. Subject separation in a porn movie - doesn't that defeat the object?
     
    Pete A, Sep 17, 2011
    #19
  20. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/17/2011 9:46 AM, Pete A wrote:
    > On 2011-09-17 02:57:42 +0100, PeterN said:
    >
    >> [...]
    >> About 40 years ago I had a client who made soft porn movies. It would
    >> be impossible to make up those stories. The owner/producer did not
    >> think it funny, when the photographer shot two black porn stars on a
    >> dark brown couch and you couldn't see what they were doing. When he
    >> told me, I started laughing so hard I couldn't stop. I only mentioned
    >> it because is a good practical lesson in subject separation for a
    >> photography group.

    >
    > Hilarious. Subject separation in a porn movie - doesn't that defeat the
    > object?
    >


    Yup! I should have said: separate the subject from the background.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PeterN

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    PeterN, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    325
    PeterN
    Sep 14, 2011
  2. otter

    Re: Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    otter, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    325
    Peter Chant
    Sep 15, 2011
  3. Pete A

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    Pete A, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    297
    PeterN
    Sep 16, 2011
  4. Stuffed Crust

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    Stuffed Crust, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    471
    Ray Fischer
    Sep 25, 2011
  5. DanP

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    DanP, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    286
    PeterN
    Sep 14, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page