The Park of the Wall

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mmyvusenet, May 6, 2011.

  1. mmyvusenet

    mmyvusenet Guest

    mmyvusenet, May 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mmyvusenet

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce, May 7, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:


    >>I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>
    >>Thanks for your comment.


    > What is the subject of the photo?


    ??? "Park of the Wall - Historical Center of Lima" as
    seen with the photo kinda covers it, I think. The photo
    is a rather good location photo, I also think...;-)
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 7, 2011
    #3
  4. mmyvusenet

    Bruce Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:

    >
    >>>I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>>
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>>
    >>>Thanks for your comment.

    >
    >> What is the subject of the photo?

    >
    >??? "Park of the Wall - Historical Center of Lima" as
    >seen with the photo kinda covers it, I think. The photo
    >is a rather good location photo, I also think...;-)
    >--DR



    Since you are clearly unable to answer the question, I will wait to
    see if Miguel can suggest an answer. ;-)
    Bruce, May 7, 2011
    #4
  5. mmyvusenet

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce <> wrote:

    > "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:
    > >Hello:
    > >
    > >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    > >
    > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    > >
    > >Thanks for your comment.

    >
    >
    >
    > What is the subject of the photo?


    Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners. Edges and
    corners are at least as important as the center of an image.
    shiva das, May 7, 2011
    #5
  6. "shiva das" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Bruce <> wrote:
    >> "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:


    >> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >> >
    >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >> >
    >> >Thanks for your comment.


    >> What is the subject of the photo?


    > Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    > Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    > an image.


    I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 7, 2011
    #6
  7. mmyvusenet

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/7/2011 12:06 PM, David Ruether wrote:
    > "shiva das"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article<>,
    >> Bruce<> wrote:
    >>> "mmyvusenet"<> wrote:

    >
    >>>> I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for your comment.

    >
    >>> What is the subject of the photo?

    >
    >> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    >> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    >> an image.

    >
    > I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    > between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
    > --DR


    Sometimes the concept of "subject" is used as substitute for interesting.
    Certainly color field paintings lack a subject.
    Few Jackson Pollock images have a subject. Having said that I can think
    of some abstract expressionist images that indeed have an almost
    traditional subject.

    e.g.
    <http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2146/2491287902_e6ef4d15c9.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/artsyt/2491287902/&usg=__Y8phorjcJ6cefZO1f9ZlG95z8M8=&h=378&w=500&sz=193&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=yJ52nK3pzJbefM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=173&ei=-3fFTYKaCsXUgQeEvr3NBA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dabstract%2Bexpressionism%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enUS335US335%26biw%3D1117%26bih%3D591%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divnsb&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=822&vpy=285&dur=270&hovh=195&hovw=258&tx=150&ty=204&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0>

    <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4>

    In my opinion the subject photo is a simple flat snapshot that says:
    this is what <fill in the blank> looks like. It it's probably an
    accurate portrayal of the area, but the image lacks interest to me.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 7, 2011
    #7
  8. "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:4dc57af9$0$12453$-secrets.com...
    > On 5/7/2011 12:06 PM, David Ruether wrote:
    >> "shiva das"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article<>,
    >>> Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>> "mmyvusenet"<> wrote:


    >>>>> I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks for your comment.


    >>>> What is the subject of the photo?


    >>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    >>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    >>> an image.


    >> I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    >> between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
    >> --DR


    > Sometimes the concept of "subject" is used as substitute for interesting.
    > Certainly color field paintings lack a subject.


    This can be disputed, since the color fields themselves
    (and their interactions) *are* the subject, as with Rothko,
    Motherwell, etc...;-)

    > Few Jackson Pollock images have a subject.


    This, too, can be disputed, since the whole can easily be taken
    as "subject"...;-)

    > Having said that I can think of some abstract expressionist images that
    > indeed have an almost traditional subject.
    >
    > e.g. <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4>


    This is a *very* interesting image, but in *all* of its parts, the
    assumed "backgrounds" are as interesting as the supposed
    "subjects", and they are an integral part of the whole of the
    image. *All* of its parts are necessary to complete this image.
    If the "heads" were cut out and placed individually on white
    backgrounds, most of the power of the combination would
    be lost.

    > In my opinion the subject photo is a simple flat snapshot that says: this
    > is what <fill in the blank> looks like. It it's probably an accurate
    > portrayal of the area, but the image lacks interest to me. --
    > Peter


    Tastes can vary, but ALL such images are "flat", and what is
    done within the entire frame is what counts (which is why I
    hate soft photo edges - they destroy the graphics within
    relative to the frame). IMNSHO, the OP's photo is a rather
    good one, if not one I would likely spend money on to have
    a copy of for hanging on my wall...;-) This one is a different
    matter, however, since I like <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4> a
    lot.
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 7, 2011
    #8
  9. mmyvusenet

    Bruce Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote:

    >
    >"shiva das" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:

    >
    >>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>> >
    >>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>> >
    >>> >Thanks for your comment.

    >
    >>> What is the subject of the photo?

    >
    >> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    >> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    >> an image.

    >
    >I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    >between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...



    Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
    defined as "the centre of the image"?
    Bruce, May 7, 2011
    #9
  10. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    >>"shiva das" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>> "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:


    >>>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>>> >
    >>>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>>> >
    >>>> >Thanks for your comment.


    >>>> What is the subject of the photo?


    >>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    >>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    >>> an image.


    >>I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    >>between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...


    > Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
    > defined as "the centre of the image"?


    Huh? I don't think anyone did... It was just pointed out that all
    parts of (and the relationships between the parts of) an image
    (which includes center, edges, and corners, not just some
    supposed "subject", which may or may not be near the middle)
    are important. Too often, I think, people see in images things
    they regard as "the subject" while neglecting "context" which
    may be an equally important part of the whole...;-)
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 8, 2011
    #10
  11. mmyvusenet

    Bruce Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    >>>"shiva das" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>>> "mmyvusenet" <> wrote:

    >
    >>>>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >Thanks for your comment.

    >
    >>>>> What is the subject of the photo?

    >
    >>>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    >>>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    >>>> an image.

    >
    >>>I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    >>>between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...

    >
    >> Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
    >> defined as "the centre of the image"?

    >
    >Huh? I don't think anyone did...



    I think it was 'shiva das'.


    >It was just pointed out that all
    >parts of (and the relationships between the parts of) an image
    >(which includes center, edges, and corners, not just some
    >supposed "subject", which may or may not be near the middle)
    >are important. Too often, I think, people see in images things
    >they regard as "the subject" while neglecting "context" which
    >may be an equally important part of the whole...;-)



    Well then, David, the quality of this multiple award winning image
    cannot possibly be in any doubt, can it.
    Bruce, May 8, 2011
    #11
  12. mmyvusenet

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/7/2011 3:17 PM, David Ruether wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4dc57af9$0$12453$-secrets.com...
    >> On 5/7/2011 12:06 PM, David Ruether wrote:
    >>> "shiva das"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In article<>,
    >>>> Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>> "mmyvusenet"<> wrote:

    >
    >>>>>> I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks for your comment.

    >
    >>>>> What is the subject of the photo?

    >
    >>>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
    >>>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
    >>>> an image.

    >
    >>> I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
    >>> between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
    >>> --DR

    >
    >> Sometimes the concept of "subject" is used as substitute for interesting.
    >> Certainly color field paintings lack a subject.

    >
    > This can be disputed, since the color fields themselves
    > (and their interactions) *are* the subject, as with Rothko,
    > Motherwell, etc...;-)
    >
    >> Few Jackson Pollock images have a subject.

    >
    > This, too, can be disputed, since the whole can easily be taken
    > as "subject"...;-)
    >
    >> Having said that I can think of some abstract expressionist images that
    >> indeed have an almost traditional subject.
    >>
    >> e.g.<http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4>

    >
    > This is a *very* interesting image, but in *all* of its parts, the
    > assumed "backgrounds" are as interesting as the supposed
    > "subjects", and they are an integral part of the whole of the
    > image. *All* of its parts are necessary to complete this image.
    > If the "heads" were cut out and placed individually on white
    > backgrounds, most of the power of the combination would
    > be lost.
    >
    >> In my opinion the subject photo is a simple flat snapshot that says: this
    >> is what<fill in the blank> looks like. It it's probably an accurate
    >> portrayal of the area, but the image lacks interest to me. --
    >> Peter

    >
    > Tastes can vary, but ALL such images are "flat", and what is
    > done within the entire frame is what counts (which is why I
    > hate soft photo edges - they destroy the graphics within
    > relative to the frame). IMNSHO, the OP's photo is a rather
    > good one, if not one I would likely spend money on to have
    > a copy of for hanging on my wall...;-) This one is a different
    > matter, however, since I like<http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4> a
    > lot.
    > --DR
    >
    >

    I not only agree that the image itself can be the subject, I think it
    should be the subject. However, n my comments above I was referring to a
    "traditional" type subject. One judge at our camera club, when viewing
    any landscape, can be reliably counted on to say something like, "it
    needs a person in a red canoe in the stream." He like too many others,
    cannot understand the abstract as a complete image. When a competition
    judge says something like: "Interesting, but I don't know what it is,' I
    know the image will not score well.

    Of course tastes and opinions differ. It would b a boring world if they
    didn't. As for the OP's image, I would never hang it on my wall, unless
    it was heavily post processed and I was a travel agent trying to sell
    trips to that location. YMMV

    Hopefully, I will have some sort of website where I can show my personal
    preferences, which tend towards the abstract. My entries in the shoot in
    this month will contain slightly different views of what one sees at a
    museum. None will be straight shots of someone Else's art. Please give
    me your honest comments.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 8, 2011
    #12
  13. "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:4dc5f249$0$12522$-secrets.com...

    [...]

    > I not only agree that the image itself can be the subject, I think it
    > should be the subject. However, in my comments above I was referring to a
    > "traditional" type subject. One judge at our camera club, when viewing any
    > landscape, can be reliably counted on to say something like, "it needs a
    > person in a red canoe in the stream." He like too many others, cannot
    > understand the abstract as a complete image. When a competition judge says
    > something like: "Interesting, but I don't know what it is,' I know the
    > image will not score well.


    I've never had much patience with camera-club aesthetics and
    judgings - they tend to insure the continuance of the premacy of
    the uninspiring and uninspired...;-)

    [...]
    > Hopefully, I will have some sort of website where I can show my personal
    > preferences, which tend towards the abstract. My entries in the shoot in
    > this month will contain slightly different views of what one sees at a
    > museum. None will be straight shots of someone Else's art. Please give me
    > your honest comments. --
    > Peter


    I used to teach photography at a well-known small college.
    The hardest thing to accomplish was getting the students past
    preconceptions of what was "good" (which was generally
    work that resembled already "recognized-as-good" work,
    styles, and approaches). My solution was to insist that all
    students bring in EVERY piece of exposed paper to show
    for class discussion (we worked with 5x7 no.2 double-weight
    glossy paper dried matte to level one aspect...). Often, even
    with images that were far from successful in any way, there
    was much of interest to see in them, and to learn from them.

    BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
    mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht1.html>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht2.html>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht3.html>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht4.html>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/sunplant1.html>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos2.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos3.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos4.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos5.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos6.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos7.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos8.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos9.htm>
    <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos10.htm>
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 8, 2011
    #13
  14. mmyvusenet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
    <> wrote:

    >I've never had much patience with camera-club aesthetics and
    >judgings - they tend to insure the continuance of the premacy of
    >the uninspiring and uninspired...;-)


    Doesn't that have more to say about the camera clubs you have been
    involved with than camera clubs in general?

    The camera club I belong to (membership of over 500 but average
    attendance is 80 to 100) has three judges on a competition night. All
    images are digital, and the entries are in three categories: color,
    black and white, and creative. In the first two groups, images may
    have only minor adjustments in processing. In "creative", anything
    goes. It's an honor system in that if the submitter has used
    Photoshop or a plug-in extensively, the entry goes in "Creative".
    Members can submit two images, but only one per category.

    On an average competition night, there are about 75 to 100 entries.
    Images are judged without the judge's knowing the submitter's name.
    Some months have mandates and some months are "open".

    The judges are two club members and one outside judge. The club
    members are usually professional photographers, but there are some
    experienced non-pros that are called on. The outside judge is from
    one of the universities that have a photography program, from Crealde
    (a non-university art and photography program), or a pro that is in
    commercial or stock photography or on a magazine staff. We've had
    some nationally known guest judges.

    Naturally, not all agree with the judge's judging or critiques, and
    some judges are better at critiquing than others. Judges tend to have
    biases towards certain types of photographs or elements of
    photographs. Often, by the third or fourth image shown (projected on
    a big screen) we know how a particular judge will critique the rest of
    the images. The images are judged earlier and critiqued as they are
    shown.

    The scoring is on a 10-point system with the scores of the three
    judges averaged. A high 8 or low 9 will usually win, and 3s are not
    uncommon. I've never seen a 10 announced, and 7s have won.

    Getting judges for our once-a-month competition nights is difficult.
    You can only tap the same people so many times, and we like fresh
    eyes.

    I've won best-in-catagory twice in the last two years. One was for an
    image that I wasn't sure was good enough to submit and one was for an
    image that I did like. Some of the my submissions that I thought
    would be competitive didn't score that well. Two images that didn't
    score well in the camera club competition were later submitted in a
    state-wide competition and won ribbons.

    I like competitions because I like the critiques. I like to know how
    other people see my photograph, and quite often they see good points
    or bad points that I didn't notice. I also like to compare my
    critique with the critique of the judges on the other people's
    photographs.

    >I used to teach photography at a well-known small college.


    If you were in this area, you might be asked to judge here as our
    outside judge.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 8, 2011
    #14
  15. mmyvusenet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
    <> wrote:

    >BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
    >mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht1.html>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht2.html>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht3.html>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht4.html>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/sunplant1.html>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos2.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos3.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos4.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos5.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos6.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos7.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos8.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos9.htm>
    > <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos10.htm>
    >--DR


    There are a lot of photographs there, so I'll take my time and go
    through all before I comment.

    However, I must say I find the presentation lacking. One page with
    two photographs, and the need to scroll to get to the second
    discourages looking at more pages. (In my opinion). On that page
    (aht1), the photographs are too small to appreciate considering what
    is portrayed. Are you presenting bricks or photographs?

    Just wandering around, the too-small problem seems rampant. It's a
    good thing you have titled the Prairie Home Companion shot. (Phun
    Fotoz) It's hard to look at the photograph and get a sense of what was
    shot.

    You do seem to do well with cats, though. The cat with the moon over
    its' shoulder works at that size.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 8, 2011
    #15
  16. mmyvusenet

    Bruce Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    >"PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >news:4dc5f249$0$12522$-secrets.com...
    >> I not only agree that the image itself can be the subject, I think it
    >> should be the subject. However, in my comments above I was referring to a
    >> "traditional" type subject. One judge at our camera club, when viewing any
    >> landscape, can be reliably counted on to say something like, "it needs a
    >> person in a red canoe in the stream." He like too many others, cannot
    >> understand the abstract as a complete image. When a competition judge says
    >> something like: "Interesting, but I don't know what it is,' I know the
    >> image will not score well.

    >
    >I've never had much patience with camera-club aesthetics and
    >judgings - they tend to insure the continuance of the premacy of
    >the uninspiring and uninspired...;-)



    Absolutely. And the Usenet version of the camera club, the SI,
    demonstrates that fact more than any other.

    I'm not in the least surprised that "PeterN" is also a member of his
    local camera club. One can only imagine what the other members are
    like, but one thing is for sure; their sole objective will be the
    pursuit of mediocrity.
    Bruce, May 8, 2011
    #16
  17. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
    > <> wrote:


    >>BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
    >>mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht1.html>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht2.html>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht3.html>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht4.html>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/sunplant1.html>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos2.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos3.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos4.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos5.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos6.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos7.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos8.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos9.htm>
    >> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos10.htm>
    >>--DR


    > There are a lot of photographs there, so I'll take my time and go
    > through all before I comment.
    >
    > However, I must say I find the presentation lacking. One page with
    > two photographs, and the need to scroll to get to the second
    > discourages looking at more pages. (In my opinion). On that page
    > (aht1), the photographs are too small to appreciate considering what
    > is portrayed. Are you presenting bricks or photographs?


    Then I question your monitor choice, or its set-up...;-) "Aht1"
    through "sunplant1" are old pages, which have worked well on
    monitors from 15" through 24". BTW, it is common to display
    photos on painted brick walls in galleries, and I wanted some
    interesting background that would simulate that effect. Also, the
    original photos *are* small (most are 6"x9", actually smaller than
    their relation to the brick pattern would indicate...;-). BTW, I
    once double-hung a show of 3.5"x5" photos on 12' high walls
    in a museum where John Lennon and Yoko Ono were also
    having a show. Needless to say, I got less assistance while
    doing the work of hanging my shoe than they did! 8^)

    > Just wandering around, the too-small problem seems rampant. It's a
    > good thing you have titled the Prairie Home Companion shot. (Phun
    > Fotoz) It's hard to look at the photograph and get a sense of what was
    > shot.


    You wandered far afield from the work I would consider "good"
    into the work that is "just of possible interest, given what was shot".
    There is a difference...;-) Also, most of my early web photos (I
    started the site in 1995) were intentionally made small since that
    was the era of slow dial-up internet service. And many were
    intentionally made useless for copying in order to control the photo
    uses.

    > You do seem to do well with cats, though. The cat with the moon over
    > its' shoulder works at that size.
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    Ah, "Hester", our best cat so far...;-)
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 8, 2011
    #17
  18. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
    > <> wrote:


    >>I've never had much patience with camera-club aesthetics and
    >>judgings - they tend to insure the continuance of the premacy of
    >>the uninspiring and uninspired...;-)


    > Doesn't that have more to say about the camera clubs you have been
    > involved with than camera clubs in general?


    I've never had much "stomach" for "art contests"...

    [...]

    >>I used to teach photography at a well-known small college.


    > If you were in this area, you might be asked to judge here as our
    > outside judge.
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    Well, during the winter (this last one was TERRIBLE here in the
    NE), I would be happy to come and be a judge, assumming all
    expenses were paid...8^)
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 8, 2011
    #18
  19. mmyvusenet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:35:40 -0400, "David Ruether"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>>BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
    >>>mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht1.html>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht2.html>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht3.html>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht4.html>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/sunplant1.html>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos2.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos3.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos4.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos5.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos6.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos7.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos8.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos9.htm>
    >>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos10.htm>
    >>>--DR

    >
    >> There are a lot of photographs there, so I'll take my time and go
    >> through all before I comment.
    >>
    >> However, I must say I find the presentation lacking. One page with
    >> two photographs, and the need to scroll to get to the second
    >> discourages looking at more pages. (In my opinion). On that page
    >> (aht1), the photographs are too small to appreciate considering what
    >> is portrayed. Are you presenting bricks or photographs?

    >
    >Then I question your monitor choice, or its set-up...;-)


    I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2253LW 21.6-inch LCD monitor.
    It is not a swivel monitor that allows me to turn the screen to
    portrait mode, but the physical vertical screen dimension is 11.25"

    That's not a huge monitor, but it's of reasonable size.

    > "Aht1"
    >through "sunplant1" are old pages, which have worked well on
    >monitors from 15" through 24".


    Look...you provided the links and the aht1 was the first link listed.
    Don't blame me if you directed me to an old page.

    > BTW, it is common to display
    >photos on painted brick walls in galleries, and I wanted some
    >interesting background that would simulate that effect.


    I like the background. My comment had more to do with the fact that
    there's more detail seen in the bricks than in the photos.

    This is a screenshot of your first link as I see it:
    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/DavidR1.gif

    I'm not looking for detail in the cat because that's obviously not a
    shot intended to be viewed in detail, but I want a better sense of
    what you've captured. That's one of those shots where you take in the
    entire image as a whole and don't look for a central point or the
    details. I don't want to squint, though, to see the whole.

    This is a screenshot of another page:
    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/DavidR2.gif

    Due to the size of image as presented, I really can't tell if this is
    a good photo or a bad photo. Composition isn't going to determine it.
    In this type of shot, the detail determines it, and the detail cannot
    be determined. The next shot, grasshopper on a yellow flower, is also
    a problem. In this small size, the center of the flower is one dark
    brown mass. In a decent-sized image, this well may be a much better
    image than it shows here.

    Next, the flies, has an iridescent quality that could be good in a
    larger size or the result of over-sharpening. The right side of the
    image is a muddle. But is it a muddle if shown larger?

    >> Just wandering around, the too-small problem seems rampant. It's a
    >> good thing you have titled the Prairie Home Companion shot. (Phun
    >> Fotoz) It's hard to look at the photograph and get a sense of what was
    >> shot.

    >
    >You wandered far afield from the work I would consider "good"
    >into the work that is "just of possible interest, given what was shot".


    You asked for comments and presented access to all photos. If you
    want to restrict the comments to your better photos, tell us what you
    think they are.

    >There is a difference...;-) Also, most of my early web photos (I
    >started the site in 1995) were intentionally made small since that
    >was the era of slow dial-up internet service. And many were
    >intentionally made useless for copying in order to control the photo
    >uses.


    I understand the problem there, but it really comes down to you asking
    us to look at your images but not presenting them to their advantage.
    I think you either have to suffer negative comments about the format,
    delete the ones that don't show well in the small size, or revamp the
    site to improve the presentation.

    How would you handle this as a teacher to your students? If a student
    submitted a 3" x 5" print of a scene that needs at least an 8" x 10"
    print to show well, and you knew you couldn't effectively critique the
    student's effort from the 3" x 5", what would you tell him/her?

    Miniatures in oil painting have long been a recognized and acceptable
    style, but the artists created a composition that worked well in the
    miniature format. Mi natures in photography don't work well unless
    the subject matter has been picked for this and has a strong singular
    content.

    Skipping to photos, I still haven't viewed all, but I like the
    lamppost and shadow in Digital Photos2 because of the way you've
    composed and cropped it. It's a good example of what some
    photographers see that others will miss.

    I don't like the tulips in 3 because it's just another flower picture,
    but the depth-of-field and color graduations are amazing. (I'm not a
    fan of flower photos...fish in a barrel photography)

    The Digital Photo series images are of better size for web display.

    You do extremely well with plants and the texture of plants. The
    texture - thinking here of the leathery leaf in one of the photos - is
    exceptional. Kind of a free ride on composition, though.

    Asking for comments on your photography is like your wife asking if
    this dress makes her butt look big. Does the questioner really want
    an honest answer?



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 8, 2011
    #19
  20. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:35:40 -0400, "David Ruether"
    > <> wrote:
    >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
    >>> <> wrote:


    >>>>BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
    >>>>mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht1.html>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht2.html>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht3.html>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht4.html>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/sunplant1.html>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos2.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos3.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos4.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos5.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos6.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos7.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos8.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos9.htm>
    >>>> <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos10.htm>
    >>>>--DR


    [...]

    >>Then I question your monitor choice, or its set-up...;-)


    > I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2253LW 21.6-inch LCD monitor.
    > It is not a swivel monitor that allows me to turn the screen to
    > portrait mode, but the physical vertical screen dimension is 11.25"
    >
    > That's not a huge monitor, but it's of reasonable size.


    It should be fine, since that page has displayed well on monitors
    from 15" (800x600) to 24" (1920x1200)...

    > Look...you provided the links and the aht1 was the first link listed.
    > Don't blame me if you directed me to an old page.


    I don't. So, you may need to scroll even with your browser
    stretched full height (but it should be possible to see all of the photos,
    complete, one at a time) - but the browser should NOT be stretched
    full width! ;-) Many web sites will not display ideally if that is done,
    and it appears from your sample below, that you have done that...

    >> BTW, it is common to display
    >>photos on painted brick walls in galleries, and I wanted some
    >>interesting background that would simulate that effect.


    > I like the background. My comment had more to do with the fact that
    > there's more detail seen in the bricks than in the photos.


    ??? Are you sure you have set your LCD to its native resolution
    and refresh rate? Otherwise, it will not be optimally sharp. Those
    images are quite sharp, given their size (even the cat) on my monitor,
    viewed from the web site.

    > This is a screenshot of your first link as I see it:
    > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/DavidR1.gif


    It looks terrible, not what I see viewing the same web page here...

    > I'm not looking for detail in the cat because that's obviously not a
    > shot intended to be viewed in detail, but I want a better sense of
    > what you've captured. That's one of those shots where you take in the
    > entire image as a whole and don't look for a central point or the
    > details. I don't want to squint, though, to see the whole.


    I will send you a couple of screen shots, one of "aht1", and another
    of the below (and the cat does have some fine detail - but if it is
    your LCD set-ups that are at fault, you may see no improvement
    in the images I send...

    > This is a screenshot of another page:
    > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/DavidR2.gif


    Are these at 100%??? They are TINY! No wonder you can't see
    anything!

    > Due to the size of image as presented, I really can't tell if this is
    > a good photo or a bad photo. Composition isn't going to determine it.
    > In this type of shot, the detail determines it, and the detail cannot
    > be determined. The next shot, grasshopper on a yellow flower, is also
    > a problem. In this small size, the center of the flower is one dark
    > brown mass. In a decent-sized image, this well may be a much better
    > image than it shows here.


    No need to go further, since you are, for possible reasons given above,
    seeing these pages as I do not see them (on anything from an old 15"
    CRT to a good 24" LCD). Check your monitor settings... The ones I'm
    sending you are not as good-looking as the originals from the site since
    the finest detail is damaged by the further jpg compressions, but they
    should look much better than what you sent (or maybe not, if you view
    them on the same monitor - check the settings...).

    >>You wandered far afield from the work I would consider "good"
    >>into the work that is "just of possible interest, given what was shot".


    > You asked for comments and presented access to all photos. If you
    > want to restrict the comments to your better photos, tell us what you
    > think they are.


    I did (the URLs for those groups were specifically listed, above...).

    > How would you handle this as a teacher to your students? If a student
    > submitted a 3" x 5" print of a scene that needs at least an 8" x 10"
    > print to show well, and you knew you couldn't effectively critique the
    > student's effort from the 3" x 5", what would you tell him/her?


    I think we are dealing with a technical problem with the way you are
    viewing the work, rather than with an aesthetic one...

    > Asking for comments on your photography is like your wife asking if
    > this dress makes her butt look big. Does the questioner really want
    > an honest answer?


    "Butt";-), did I really ask for comments, not that I don't appreciate your
    efforts and comments! ;-)

    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    --DR
    David Ruether, May 8, 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. Cymbal Man Freq.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    936
    Uncle John
    Jun 4, 2005
  2. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    From tomorrow's Wall Street Journal

    Flatus Ohlfahrt, Dec 30, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
  3. mmyvusenet

    Park of the Wall

    mmyvusenet, Aug 7, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    286
    mmyvusenet
    Aug 10, 2010
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: The Park of the Wall

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 9, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    225
    tony cooper
    May 19, 2011
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: The Park of the Wall

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 19, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    228
    tony cooper
    May 19, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page