Quote:
I want to say this site has been helpful in many ways, I am learning much about the photographers who post here. Now what we need is an image forum where we can post images and comment on each others work. I find through other sites I have learned more about people through viewing and talking to them about their work. I believe we would better understand each other if we did that here. Monte Johnson.

Ooooo sounds like a BIG canofworms on this 1. Have you ever heard the joke.....how many photographers does it it take ti screw in a litebulb?..............all of them!!! 1 to say how he'ddo it, and all the rest to say how much better THRY would have done it! HAHAHAHAHA 1 of the best phtotography jokes I've ever heard HAHAHAHA!!

Monte,

You

Roger,
I understand what you are saying, I have been there myself. It was just an idea, but Like it was said opens a whole new can of worms. Monte Johnson.

Oppinons do tend to become quite expressive at image photo sites. You are right, every one has their thought on what makes it better. One thing that is interesting though is people are creatures of interesting characteristics. Monte Johnson.

i made the suggestio nto Mr. Schaub a while back for a critique page.

Like the man said, it's in the works. I think the summer has slowed us all down a bit, I know I'm slowly melting here in NYC.

George,

Come on back to Brevard for awhile. Came across SR 520 from Merritt Island to Cocoa yesterday...95. Not .

Roger

Roger, I am sorry to hear that... I actually appreciate people telling me how they think my photographs could be improved, especially when the criticism includes specific things I can try for myself. In photography, as in most art, it is true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" -- but if the only thing anyone ever tells me is "good job" then how am I ever going to learn and improve my work?

Of course, you will have some turkeys who do nothing but trash-talk everything they see, and you will also have those who criticize, not the photograph, but the photographer, and that isn't so good either. And, in some cases, what looks better to someone else looks absolutely horrible to me -- again, that's OK, as I have learned something new.

-Ed T.

Monte.

Ideally a photo forum without photos is really missing the potential of what can be communicated and debated. But there is a practical limitation which introduces a very misleading bias most will be unaware of.

Quite frequently I hear and read criticisms of Ansel Adams and his photography. Although Ansel had a limited vision I suspect most of the criticism comes from photographers who have never seen an original 20x24 inch print of his Moonrise Over Hernandez. Then you have to be a pretty calloused and cynical photographer who does not give Ansel Adams his due appreciation. But if all a person ever saw of Ansel Adams photographs were picture postcard reproductions there might not be much reason to be impressed. To a very significant extent the medium is the message.

What I am suggesting is that the medium, in this case small JPEG reproductions in web safe colors reproduced on who knows what quality of computer monitor, will favor some otherwise mediocre images if made into a large print, and make great photo images as large prints appear less than ordinary snapshots.

Recently I did a long and intense exploration of photoblogs and wrote an article about this new photo medium and its enthusiastic following. I chose some outstanding individuals whose vision was highly tuned to the medium creating some striking images as displayed on the web on my monitor. Reproduced by another medium in a different context would those same images have as much going for them. I doubt it very seriously.

So, I am suggesting that the limiting bias of the web and a computer display may be very "unfair" and favor some at the disadvantage of others, which if the medium and context were different would have a very opposite result. So, maybe don't wish for something you might be sorry for when that wish comes to be.

David,
You make a very good point because there are a lot of difference in Computor monitors and processing of images. I can see that would at times not be a unfair representation of the actual photo, But I feel it also gives us at times a better perpective of what we do through what others see. The bad side is we are at the mercy of some who might not be so kind. So in that respect it can do more harm then good. I feel the average person is considerate of others feelings and the ones that are not soon are sorted out. I do not know if the good out ways the bad here, just a thought. On other sites some have been hard at times, but I learned a lot through the experince of others. Monte Johnson.

Going one step furthur beyond what David said, if you have ever seen originals of Moonrise--of both the original un manipulated version(straight print with no dodging or burning) and the manipulated versions side by side--the difference is breathtaking. I had the pleasure of seeing this at the Alinder's Gallery a while back.

Dave,
I can see there are mixed feelings about this. Understanding all the facts does give me a different perspective on things. Monte Johnson.

Dave,

Probably the one thing Ansel repeated most often was his description of what photography was about for him. He likened what he did as the negative being like a music score and the printing was the performance. Of course for those who are familiar with Ansel Adams knowing he studied to be a concert pianist before taking up photography, it makes a lost of sense.

Why don't people post their pictures right here for review. There is no reasons why it wouldn't work. There are hundreds, if not thousands of forums and image critique sites out there doing exactly the same thing.

There should be three rules to abide by. Images need to be already on the web, there should be a maximum image size and that the forum moderators have the right to delete posts of offending images.

Monitor differences are irrelevant when evaluating composition and image content. Just use the UBBCode link below for image posting. Check web image properties of the image for the actual URL which goes into the Image UBBCode.

Larry,

Bad Idea for two reasons. First most of the SB readers do not have images on the web already, so where do they get the URL otherwise, so it is basically unfair. And second. I for one do not want to be a monitor/censor of incoming images, nor do I think any of my colleagues are likely to volunteer.

I see things differently and have possible solutions. I'll e-mail you off list in the next day or so with my ideas.

Actually, it is possible to attach a file now.

Ronk,

Do you mean as an attachment to a post?

Roger

Yes, see attached

You can also link a photo from a web site by clicking on

image and creating the link (copy paste from Properties)Right click on image and select Properties,

highlight the URL and Copy>Paste

Dave,

I know that is one way, but I think a seperate place here might be better. Very nice photo. What camera? Monte Johnson.

Thanks,
Minolta XE7, Rokkor X 50 F1.4, TriX @320 in ID11, 1:1.Progably at F 8 or F 11 exposing for the dark sand.
Film scanned in a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II. This one was much easier to manipulate in the computer than it was to make a wet print.

Dave,

Love F8- 11 on 35mm. 50 1.4 lens is a good lens. I had the X370 and used a 50 1.7MD lens. Cheap lens, but did ok. Monte Johnson.

Probably one of the sharpest lenses ever made was the 55mm
RokkorX f 1.2. I almost snagged a new one at the Photo Swap meet in San Jose a few years back on a unused in the box XKE for $500. By the time I got to a teller machine and back--it was gone.