Re: Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:39:29 -0500, Larry Thong
    <> wrote:

    >I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit
    >lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old 70-200
    >VR2. It worked!
    >
    ><http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg>


    Here's a shot of a violinist from earlier this month. The Orlando
    Symphony Orchestra provided some orchestra members for an event for
    kids at a local park. The idea was to let the kids try playing
    various musical instruments.

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-099/959015269_RtuZN-XL.jpg

    The image has been faked. There was some really ugly background in
    the original, so I did some masking and dropped in a cleaner
    background with a shot taken the same day.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:39:29 -0500, Larry Thong
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit
    >>lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old 70-200
    >>VR2. It worked!
    >>
    >><http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg>

    >
    > Here's a shot of a violinist from earlier this month. The Orlando
    > Symphony Orchestra provided some orchestra members for an event for
    > kids at a local park. The idea was to let the kids try playing
    > various musical instruments.
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-099/959015269_RtuZN-XL.jpg
    >
    > The image has been faked. There was some really ugly background in
    > the original, so I did some masking and dropped in a cleaner
    > background with a shot taken the same day.
    >



    You seem to have a great eye for people. You really brought out her
    expression of nervous determination. The adult helping hand takes you
    capture out of the ordinary.
    I will not nitpick your background.
    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:50:02 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:39:29 -0500, Larry Thong
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit
    >>>lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old 70-200
    >>>VR2. It worked!
    >>>
    >>><http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg>

    >>
    >> Here's a shot of a violinist from earlier this month. The Orlando
    >> Symphony Orchestra provided some orchestra members for an event for
    >> kids at a local park. The idea was to let the kids try playing
    >> various musical instruments.
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-099/959015269_RtuZN-XL.jpg
    >>
    >> The image has been faked. There was some really ugly background in
    >> the original, so I did some masking and dropped in a cleaner
    >> background with a shot taken the same day.
    >>

    >
    >
    >You seem to have a great eye for people. You really brought out her
    >expression of nervous determination. The adult helping hand takes you
    >capture out of the ordinary.
    > I will not nitpick your background.


    Here's another one from that day. This one is not Photoshopped. I
    don't like too many people in the background, but it was a large event
    and it was impossible to shoot without background.

    Love the expression on this future Ringo Starr or Keith Moon.

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-098/959015274_vLZHS-XL.jpg
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:50:02 -0400, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:39:29 -0500, Larry Thong
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit
    >>>>lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old 70-200
    >>>>VR2. It worked!
    >>>>
    >>>><http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg>
    >>>
    >>> Here's a shot of a violinist from earlier this month. The Orlando
    >>> Symphony Orchestra provided some orchestra members for an event for
    >>> kids at a local park. The idea was to let the kids try playing
    >>> various musical instruments.
    >>>
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-099/959015269_RtuZN-XL.jpg
    >>>
    >>> The image has been faked. There was some really ugly background in
    >>> the original, so I did some masking and dropped in a cleaner
    >>> background with a shot taken the same day.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>You seem to have a great eye for people. You really brought out her
    >>expression of nervous determination. The adult helping hand takes you
    >>capture out of the ordinary.
    >> I will not nitpick your background.

    >
    > Here's another one from that day. This one is not Photoshopped. I
    > don't like too many people in the background, but it was a large event
    > and it was impossible to shoot without background.
    >
    > Love the expression on this future Ringo Starr or Keith Moon.
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-098/959015274_vLZHS-XL.jpg



    Love it. His expression certainly shows his enjoyment of the moment.
    I would have cropped vertically just above his dad's elbow and horizontally
    leaving about 1/2 his dad's left leg in the shot. This would provide some
    primary framing for his face. I would also tone down the background colors
    and put in a slight Gaussian blur.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 5, 2010
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:43:49 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >>
    >> Love the expression on this future Ringo Starr or Keith Moon.
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-07-17-098/959015274_vLZHS-XL.jpg

    >
    >
    >Love it. His expression certainly shows his enjoyment of the moment.
    >I would have cropped vertically just above his dad's elbow and horizontally
    >leaving about 1/2 his dad's left leg in the shot. This would provide some
    >primary framing for his face. I would also tone down the background colors
    >and put in a slight Gaussian blur.


    The "dad" is the symphony orchestra drummer just as the hand in the
    violinist image is the hand of a symphony orchestra violinist. Some
    real pros giving kids a chance to play instruments.

    I could mess around in Channels and tone down the grass, but I didn't
    do anything to this shot except convert it from RAW.

    Shots like this either have to be presented as-shot or extensively
    worked on. The boy has very fair skin and the man has very dark skin.
    To get the right exposure of both faces can be tricky. What I would
    do if I wanted this better would be to make two layers as Smart
    Objects and then lighten-up the man's face and mask on the other
    layer.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:43:49 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >Love it. His expression certainly shows his enjoyment of the moment.
    >I would have cropped vertically just above his dad's elbow and horizontally
    >leaving about 1/2 his dad's left leg in the shot. This would provide some
    >primary framing for his face.


    Interesting take. There are two ways to present this photo: cropped
    as you suggest to feature the child's expression and activity, or
    uncropped to show that the child is being tutored by an adult.

    I chose the latter because I was at the scene and understand what was
    going on. It was the tutoring by an adult of a child that was what I
    was capturing.

    However, if you weren't on the scene and didn't know this, the child's
    face and apparent enjoyment is the interesting aspect and your crop
    makes for a more interesting photo.

    This kinda points out that the photographer's thought of what he is
    capturing can over-ride his instincts on what makes a good finished
    photograph. The photographer should really view the image as an
    outsider to envision the best portrayal.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:43:49 -0400, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Love it. His expression certainly shows his enjoyment of the moment.
    >>I would have cropped vertically just above his dad's elbow and
    >>horizontally
    >>leaving about 1/2 his dad's left leg in the shot. This would provide some
    >>primary framing for his face.

    >
    > Interesting take. There are two ways to present this photo: cropped
    > as you suggest to feature the child's expression and activity, or
    > uncropped to show that the child is being tutored by an adult.
    >
    > I chose the latter because I was at the scene and understand what was
    > going on. It was the tutoring by an adult of a child that was what I
    > was capturing.
    >
    > However, if you weren't on the scene and didn't know this, the child's
    > face and apparent enjoyment is the interesting aspect and your crop
    > makes for a more interesting photo.
    >
    > This kinda points out that the photographer's thought of what he is
    > capturing can over-ride his instincts on what makes a good finished
    > photograph. The photographer should really view the image as an
    > outsider to envision the best portrayal.
    >



    Proving once again that various photographers can have different
    interpretations of a similar image. Yet neither is right and neither is
    wrong.

    BTW I hope you are saving one in this series for the "sounds of the season"
    SI.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 5, 2010
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:i3eoqs$241$...

    >> Here's another one from that day. This one is not Photoshopped.

    >
    > This is a good candidate for Photoshopping. Even as "journalism".
    > You could remove all the people except the main 4 with no quibble.
    > This especially includes the person in the orange shirt which is
    > all that is showing. And of course the teensy ones in the background.
    >


    I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not so,
    if presented as art.
    Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of
    the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a
    pictorial.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 5, 2010
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
    >news:i3eoqs$241$...
    >
    >>> Here's another one from that day. This one is not Photoshopped.

    >>
    >> This is a good candidate for Photoshopping. Even as "journalism".
    >> You could remove all the people except the main 4 with no quibble.
    >> This especially includes the person in the orange shirt which is
    >> all that is showing. And of course the teensy ones in the background.
    >>

    >
    >I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not so,
    >if presented as art.
    >Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of
    >the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a
    >pictorial.


    I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street"
    and "PJ" (Photo Journalism).

    Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a
    cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a
    shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for
    interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in
    whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy
    scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and -
    of course - war scenes.

    In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract
    from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can
    is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or
    significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is
    acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing
    steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have
    more contrast than the actual scene.

    In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is
    pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out
    something that might change the viewer's perception of what is
    portrayed.

    What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely
    different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes
    and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that
    trash can.

    I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no
    problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with
    adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo
    of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something
    in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of
    irritation.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >


    >>
    >>I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not
    >>so,
    >>if presented as art.
    >>Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of
    >>the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a
    >>pictorial.

    >
    > I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street"
    > and "PJ" (Photo Journalism).
    >
    > Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a
    > cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a
    > shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for
    > interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in
    > whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy
    > scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and -
    > of course - war scenes.
    >
    > In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract
    > from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can
    > is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or
    > significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is
    > acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing
    > steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have
    > more contrast than the actual scene.
    >
    > In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is
    > pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out
    > something that might change the viewer's perception of what is
    > portrayed.
    >
    > What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely
    > different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes
    > and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that
    > trash can.
    >
    > I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no
    > problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with
    > adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo
    > of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something
    > in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of
    > irritation.



    OK
    It's good to have definitions so we understand. Perhaps because I don't do a
    lot of street photography, I really don't distinguish between PJ and street.
    You are certainly correct in the context of your distinction about no
    cropping in PJ.

    I define pictorial as any image that has been seriously manipulated. I have
    no problem taking out of putting in. I will frequently change the sky, add
    birds, etc. I will also do full or partial partial color reversals. I do not
    represent any image as an accurate portrayal of the scene, unless it is. In
    our club I had presented an image of a lighthouse. the judge commented that
    it would be a stronger image if reversed. Under our local rules it would be
    permitted.

    Since this is a hobby, I think it's OK to do whatever degree of manipulation
    makes you comfortable.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 5, 2010
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:38:55 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>

    >
    >>>
    >>>I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not
    >>>so,
    >>>if presented as art.
    >>>Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of
    >>>the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a
    >>>pictorial.

    >>
    >> I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street"
    >> and "PJ" (Photo Journalism).
    >>
    >> Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a
    >> cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a
    >> shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for
    >> interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in
    >> whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy
    >> scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and -
    >> of course - war scenes.
    >>
    >> In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract
    >> from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can
    >> is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or
    >> significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is
    >> acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing
    >> steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have
    >> more contrast than the actual scene.
    >>
    >> In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is
    >> pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out
    >> something that might change the viewer's perception of what is
    >> portrayed.
    >>
    >> What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely
    >> different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes
    >> and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that
    >> trash can.
    >>
    >> I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no
    >> problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with
    >> adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo
    >> of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something
    >> in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of
    >> irritation.

    >
    >
    >OK
    >It's good to have definitions so we understand. Perhaps because I don't do a
    >lot of street photography, I really don't distinguish between PJ and street.
    >You are certainly correct in the context of your distinction about no
    >cropping in PJ.
    >
    >I define pictorial as any image that has been seriously manipulated. I have
    >no problem taking out of putting in. I will frequently change the sky, add
    >birds, etc. I will also do full or partial partial color reversals. I do not
    >represent any image as an accurate portrayal of the scene, unless it is. In
    >our club I had presented an image of a lighthouse. the judge commented that
    >it would be a stronger image if reversed. Under our local rules it would be
    >permitted.
    >
    >Since this is a hobby, I think it's OK to do whatever degree of manipulation
    >makes you comfortable.


    I'm gin player, and a money gin player. Not big money, but the game
    doesn't interest me unless it's so-much-a-point. The first thing gin
    players do, before the cards are shuffled, is define the rules. Is it
    knock, and is there a maximum count to knock? Deal one more card to
    the non-dealer or the same number to both players and turn a card with
    a choice taking it or drawing from the deck? Hollywood? How much a
    point, how much a box, and what bonus for a schnitz? And so on.

    Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    the "Creative" group.

    Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.

    I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll
    process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which
    way he's facing in the capture.

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/costco-011/708026915_sZDGm-XL.jpg


    So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not
    pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of
    people, places, or things?




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2010
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...


    > Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    > have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    > camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    > the "Creative" group.
    >
    > Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    > category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    > gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    > flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    > right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.


    I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    shoot
    the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    left. If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
    have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
    rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
    saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1306/is_6_75/ai_n31978458/



    >
    > I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll
    > process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which
    > way he's facing in the capture.
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/costco-011/708026915_sZDGm-XL.jpg
    >
    >
    > So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not
    > pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of
    > people, places, or things?
    >





    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 5, 2010
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >
    >
    >> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >> the "Creative" group.
    >>
    >> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.

    >
    >I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >shoot
    >the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >left.


    I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.

    You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    reason to flop the image.

    Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.


    > If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
    >have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
    >rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
    >saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:
    >
    >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1306/is_6_75/ai_n31978458/
    >

    I don't see what that has to do with it. Those are PSA's rules for
    photos submitted for competitions or exhibitions. My club has a rule
    that photos submitted for competition must be no larger than 1400
    pixels on the longest side and the Shoot-In says no larger than 1024
    on the longest side. Different groups, different rules. If the image
    isn't for any particular group or publication, then only ethics and
    common sense applies.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2010
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>
    >>
    >>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >>> the "Creative" group.
    >>>
    >>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.

    >>
    >>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >>shoot
    >>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >>left.

    >
    > I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    > discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    > sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    > doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    > don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
    >
    > You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    > steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    > flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    > reason to flop the image.
    >
    > Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.
    >
    >
    >> If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
    >>have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
    >>rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
    >>saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:
    >>
    >>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1306/is_6_75/ai_n31978458/
    >>

    > I don't see what that has to do with it. Those are PSA's rules for
    > photos submitted for competitions or exhibitions. My club has a rule
    > that photos submitted for competition must be no larger than 1400
    > pixels on the longest side and the Shoot-In says no larger than 1024
    > on the longest side. Different groups, different rules. If the image
    > isn't for any particular group or publication, then only ethics and
    > common sense applies.



    Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
    your statement that
    "Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    category."
    I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
    statement is inapplicable.

    Locally we are having a big debate over whether to add a nature category
    that will be governed by PSA rules, which are pretty much the standard in
    what I would guess is the vast majority of competitions and exhibitions.
    Yet, just as in golf, there are local rules, that differ.

    In your gin games, local rules may differ and need to be understood, prior
    to commencing play.

    I have had modest success playing poker and blackjack. I will not play until
    I know all the local rules. If I do not like them I do not play.



    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 6, 2010
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "Crapshooter's Education 101" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:eek:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >>>> the "Creative" group.
    >>>>
    >>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
    >>>
    >>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >>>shoot
    >>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >>>left.

    >>
    >>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    >>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    >>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    >>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    >>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
    >>
    >>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    >>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    >>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    >>reason to flop the image.
    >>
    >>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.

    >
    > You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like that's
    > any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
    > appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very different
    > than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
    > symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
    > duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
    > another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different
    > the
    > left and right sides truly are.



    So you are saying that if I shoot a person's left side and flop the image, I
    will have an image of his right side?

    Interesting concept.
    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 6, 2010
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:4c5b6bb9$0$5486$-secrets.com...
    > "Crapshooter's Education 101" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:eek:...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >>>>> the "Creative" group.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
    >>>>
    >>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >>>>shoot
    >>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >>>>left.
    >>>
    >>>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    >>>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    >>>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    >>>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    >>>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
    >>>
    >>>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    >>>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    >>>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    >>>reason to flop the image.
    >>>
    >>>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.

    >>
    >> You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like that's
    >> any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
    >> appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very
    >> different
    >> than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
    >> symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
    >> duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
    >> another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different
    >> the
    >> left and right sides truly are.

    >
    >
    > So you are saying that if I shoot a person's left side and flop the image,
    > I will have an image of his right side?
    >
    > Interesting concept.
    > --

    I think he's saying that if you flop the image the person's left side now
    looking like the right side will not equal the person's actual right side.
    Tim Conway, Aug 6, 2010
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:09:55 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:eek:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >>>> the "Creative" group.
    >>>>
    >>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
    >>>
    >>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >>>shoot
    >>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >>>left.

    >>
    >> I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    >> discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    >> sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    >> doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    >> don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
    >>
    >> You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    >> steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    >> flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    >> reason to flop the image.
    >>
    >> Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.
    >>
    >>
    >>> If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
    >>>have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
    >>>rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
    >>>saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:
    >>>
    >>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1306/is_6_75/ai_n31978458/
    >>>

    >> I don't see what that has to do with it. Those are PSA's rules for
    >> photos submitted for competitions or exhibitions. My club has a rule
    >> that photos submitted for competition must be no larger than 1400
    >> pixels on the longest side and the Shoot-In says no larger than 1024
    >> on the longest side. Different groups, different rules. If the image
    >> isn't for any particular group or publication, then only ethics and
    >> common sense applies.

    >
    >
    >Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
    >your statement that
    >"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >category."
    >I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
    >statement is inapplicable.


    It would only inapplicable in certain categories *within* certain
    groups if the group has categories. In the group PSA, it seems that
    the prohibition is across the board, although someone might argue that
    horizontal flopping is not rearranging elements since the elements of
    the photo remain in the exact same relationship to the other elements
    in the photo. An element is a part, and flopping affects the whole.

    Be an interesting question to bring up to PSA, but not one to bring up
    in your club. Never a good idea to start a debate in your own club.




    >


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2010
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:12:44 -0500, Crapshooter's Education 101
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:eek:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >>>> the "Creative" group.
    >>>>
    >>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
    >>>
    >>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >>>shoot
    >>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >>>left.

    >>
    >>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    >>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    >>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    >>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    >>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
    >>
    >>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    >>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    >>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    >>reason to flop the image.
    >>
    >>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.

    >
    >You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like that's
    >any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
    >appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very different
    >than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
    >symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
    >duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
    >another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different the
    >left and right sides truly are.


    I know that reading something tires your lips, but do try. A full
    frontal portrait would not (a) make sense to flop (read what I wrote
    above) and (b) there wouldn't be a reason to flop it (read what I
    wrote above). A flopped profile or semi-profile shot does not alter
    the appearance.

    There's a (c), but I may have over-taxed your mental capacity to
    follow by going to a second paragraph. The discussion is about photos
    submitted in competitions. Ninty-nine percent of the viewers won't
    know the subject enough to know that the mole is on the left side or
    the right side, let alone well enough to spot asymmetric variances.

    I know you think that a flopped profile shows the other side of the
    face, but it really doesn't. That's why they had you face left and
    then right when they took your photographs at the station house.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2010
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >>Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
    >>your statement that
    >>"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>category."
    >>I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
    >>statement is inapplicable.

    >
    > It would only inapplicable in certain categories *within* certain
    > groups if the group has categories. In the group PSA, it seems that
    > the prohibition is across the board, although someone might argue that
    > horizontal flopping is not rearranging elements since the elements of
    > the photo remain in the exact same relationship to the other elements
    > in the photo. An element is a part, and flopping affects the whole.
    >


    As I understand it, PSA only has strict rules in the nature and PJ
    categories.



    > Be an interesting question to bring up to PSA, but not one to bring up
    > in your club. Never a good idea to start a debate in your own club.
    >





    The issue is not local to our club. It started from the body of which our
    club is a member. Our club voted down the idea, but somehow our negative
    vote was recorded as a positive vote. The board of our governing body
    resigned over the issue.
    We are a fairly small club, 65 active members. We have regular field trips,
    that include at least one meal. so far we have had three this week. Many
    members show up just for Sunday morning breakfast and then just go home.
    Several of our members are going on a three week field trip in September. I
    agree we try not to start debates, since most of us get along reasonably
    well. Somehow our rule changes come about by consensus and are then
    formalized.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 6, 2010
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Peter Guest

    "Tim Conway" <> wrote in message
    news:i3fqak$isk$-september.org...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c5b6bb9$0$5486$-secrets.com...
    >> "Crapshooter's Education 101" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:eek:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
    >>>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
    >>>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
    >>>>>> the "Creative" group.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
    >>>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
    >>>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
    >>>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
    >>>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
    >>>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
    >>>>>shoot
    >>>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
    >>>>>left.
    >>>>
    >>>>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
    >>>>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
    >>>>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
    >>>>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
    >>>>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
    >>>>
    >>>>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
    >>>>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
    >>>>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
    >>>>reason to flop the image.
    >>>>
    >>>>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.
    >>>
    >>> You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like
    >>> that's
    >>> any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
    >>> appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very
    >>> different
    >>> than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
    >>> symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
    >>> duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
    >>> another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different
    >>> the
    >>> left and right sides truly are.

    >>
    >>
    >> So you are saying that if I shoot a person's left side and flop the
    >> image, I will have an image of his right side?
    >>
    >> Interesting concept.
    >> --

    > I think he's saying that if you flop the image the person's left side now
    > looking like the right side will not equal the person's actual right side.
    >



    A few hours ago, I lost my ability to read minds over the Internet. ;-)


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 6, 2010
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?U3RlcGhlbiBJbmtwZW4=?=

    Device search returns devices with zero length strings

    =?Utf-8?B?U3RlcGhlbiBJbmtwZW4=?=, Jul 6, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    492
    =?Utf-8?B?TWlsZXM=?=
    Jul 15, 2005
  2. Matthias Fischer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    865
    Matthias Fischer
    Jan 21, 2004
  3. gangle

    Pulling strings

    gangle, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    484
    gangle
    Sep 16, 2004
  4. Bruce

    Re: Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!

    Bruce, Aug 2, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    318
    Peter
    Aug 3, 2010
  5. Nervous Nick

    Re: Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!

    Nervous Nick, Aug 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    1,155
    Charles E Hardwidge
    Aug 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page