Poor attempt at humour. It's one thing critiquing a person's pictures no matter how bad they may be but to fake a person's ID is just not cricket. Poor form.
despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and a horizon could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the sky, there's not even the slightest bit of vignetting! You've nailed a real keeper here.
For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents, perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your assistant's hands out of the chips.
Dave E wrote: > despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and a > horizon could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the sky, > there's not even the slightest bit of vignetting! You've nailed a > real keeper here. > For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents, > perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your > assistant's hands out of the chips.
You're being a bit picky about the blowout. You have to look really hard to see it. The horizon and crop were probably done for artistic reasons.
You're pulling our legs, right? perspective distortion, overexposed, bald flash, burnt highlights - its a TERRIBLE photo! By far the worst you've done. You've gotta be joking.
> You're pulling our legs, right? perspective distortion, overexposed, > bald flash, burnt highlights - its a TERRIBLE photo! By far the worst > you've done. You've gotta be joking.
> Colin D.
Pox. Sucked by a shithead. F**k these clever-dick assholes ...
>> Dave E wrote: >>> despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and >>> a horizon could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the >>> sky, there's not even the slightest bit of vignetting! You've >>> nailed a real keeper here. >>> For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your >>> parents, perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep >>> your assistant's hands out of the chips. >> You're being a bit picky about the blowout. You have to look >> really hard to see it. The horizon and crop were probably done for >> artistic reasons.
>> -Mike
> A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' > display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot > display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a > person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no > assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
> Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's > grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge > Internet images on their content and appeal.
> Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds > so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a > scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is > subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the > horizon at an angle. > http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
Great pic with a lot of detail but it made me feel sea sick
silent lamb wrote: > Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's > grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge > Internet images on their content and appeal.
Dave E wrote: > For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents, > perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your assistant's hands > out of the chips.
Shewt! You mean his dad is *NOT* the one looking at the camera? crap: my eyes are really deceiving me now, I must switch to digital real soon....
: : > For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your parents, : > perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep your assistant's hands : > out of the chips. : > : : Shewt! You mean his dad is *NOT* the one looking at the camera? : crap: my eyes are really deceiving me now, I must switch : to digital real soon.... :
> silent lamb wrote: >> Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's >> grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge >> Internet images on their content and appeal.
> Hi Doug,
> Thought you had blocked me.
> Dave was making a joke. I just continued it.
> -Mike
Yeah... I suppose it would help if I actually looked at the site referenced but there's been so much traffic here lately aimed at destroying the fibre of the group - photography, I felt the need to correct the obviously stupid assumption people here are making that you can judge the quality of a photograph on a computer monitor...
You can't but that doesn't stop some from trying to do it for their own entertainment at the expense of those who have gone to the trouble of making an effort in the first place. Sorry if you and Dave got in my field of view... Changes the perspective of the whole scene!
>> Dave E wrote: >>> despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and >>> a horizon could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the >>> sky, there's not even the slightest bit of vignetting! You've >>> nailed a real keeper here. >>> For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your >>> parents, perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep >>> your assistant's hands out of the chips.
>> You're being a bit picky about the blowout. You have to look >> really hard to see it. The horizon and crop were probably done for >> artistic reasons.
>> -Mike
> A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' > display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot > display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a > person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no > assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
> Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's > grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge > Internet images on their content and appeal.
> Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds > so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a > scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is > subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the > horizon at an angle. > http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
> Her pic is very interesting but when you level out the horizon, it > is not so interesting. She concentrates on the subject, composing a > picture she likes to see without regard for any "rules of > composition". Some of her photos are used by publishers.
> This is why I get quite passionate about someone making negative > remarks about other people's photographs. Unless you are an Art > curator in a gallery or a recognized art critic, making negative > comments about a picture is a really poor form of entertainment.
> Dave my have an opinion as do I but to voice that opinion when it > negatively impacts on someone's work is quite impolite if you have > no qualifications to criticize.
> ------------- > Almost as bad as someone claiming they can enlarge pictures in the face > of a few wankers who say it can't be done and that someone sending a > certain NewZealand Ex-Pro a sample to prove it can... Followed by > months of silence from him, isn't it?
> I didn't mind so much sending you $70 worth of print as your total > silence here and privately. If you thought it was crap you could have > said so. You could have said it wasn't too, if you though that way.
> Seems to me this group ought to change it's charter to > aus.ridicule.people.and.their.photos.
> It would be almost as appropriate as being stupid enough to think an > (EX) Professional who has been vocal, vocal vocal about anything and > everything photography, might make a comment or even acknowledge > receiving a three foot long enlargement for free. I guess I've been > wrong about a few people here.
> That'll change.
Shit dude, let it go. Your like a dog with a bone when it comes to your enlargements.
Why did you feel the need to raise this point in a totally irrelevant thread? Given your mandate about only supplying enlargements to those who provide you with full contact details, couldn't you have raised this point personally instead of trashing it out here? And besides... just because you sent him some stuff doesn't mean he is obligated to comment on it in a public forum... good or bad.
I'm sure i'll get shit hung on me for this, but you seem more intent on proving yourself than being "vocal vocal vocal about anything and everything photography".
> Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds > so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a > scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is > subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the > horizon at an angle. > http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
> Her pic is very interesting but when you level out the horizon, it > is not so interesting.
Looks like a good case for using Photoshop to "adjust" the horizon to match the photo IMO.
>She concentrates on the subject, composing a > picture she likes to see without regard for any "rules of > composition".
Sure, doen't mean she is always right though.
> Some of her photos are used by publishers.
Does that mean something special I'm not aware of? Some of the crappiest photo's ever taken have been published due to the subject matter and/or lack of alternatives
> This is why I get quite passionate about someone making negative > remarks about other people's photographs. Unless you are an Art > curator in a gallery or a recognized art critic, making negative > comments about a picture is a really poor form of entertainment.
If you don't want others opinions, then simply don't show them your work!
> Dave my have an opinion as do I but to voice that opinion when it > negatively impacts on someone's work is quite impolite if you have > no qualifications to criticize.
I'm not aware of any qualification in criticism? It's up to you how much regard you have for the comments offered.
> A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' > display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot > display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a > person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no > assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
that is crap! The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.
I did quite a bit of research into this some time ago, and found while mac's tend to have good contrast ratios.... this is far from the entire range... in fact some are whoefull compared to standard monitors.... I found I could get an LCD off the shelf for a fraction of the price I could have gotten the mac monitor... and they had the same contrast ratio.
I am somewhat sick of hearing the mac vs. PC debate (not the operating system)and getting blind faith in mac's with little to actually justify why they are so good.
1. Looks have nothing to do with the above... mac wins hands down.
2. For those MACavites out there who want to debate.... I am replying to a post.... no more to be said about mac vs. pc ( unless you have a really kick ass reason why they are better.... cause I have yet to hear one that is not based on the operating system (linux is prefferable) or someone being indoctrinated in art school!)
> Almost as bad as someone claiming they can enlarge pictures in the face > of a few wankers who say it can't be done and that someone sending a > certain NewZealand Ex-Pro a sample to prove it can... Followed by > months of silence from him, isn't it?
> I didn't mind so much sending you $70 worth of print as your total > silence here and privately. If you thought it was crap you could have > said so. You could have said it wasn't too, if you though that way.
> Seems to me this group ought to change it's charter to > aus.ridicule.people.and.their.photos.
> It would be almost as appropriate as being stupid enough to think an > (EX) Professional who has been vocal, vocal vocal about anything and > everything photography, might make a comment or even acknowledge > receiving a three foot long enlargement for free. I guess I've been > wrong about a few people here.
> That'll change.
Doug, I'm sorry you appear to not have received my emailed response to your photograph. I did write an answer to you (looks back at old emails) at this address: <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com>
The email didn't bounce, so I presume it was delivered. Here is the source header for the email in question, which shows it was sent on 2nd May 2006: (I have edited the actual email addresses to help fool spam harvesting)
From - Tue May 02 21:41:30 2006 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <44572943.64D0E423@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 21:41:23 +1200 From: C J Donoghue <cjdonoghue (at) xtra (dot) co (dot) nz> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Douglas <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com> Subject: Re: 24 x 36 print References: <443756DB.A9BE6292@xtra.co.nz> <4439FBC1.9060707 (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since the email was personal to you I haven't shown the contents here. If your email address above is wrong, please let me know and I will resend the letter.
> > A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' > > display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot > > display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a > > person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no > > assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
> that is crap! > The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may > remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out > to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.
I think what the poster referred to is the different gamma on Macs, which is a function of the video driver rather than the screen itself, and is an arbitrary setting - using a tool such as Adobe Gamma Loader you can set up your PC display to have a Mac-like gamma.
So while Mac monitors themselves are more or less identical to non-Mac-branded monitors, and have the same black- and white-points and same luminance, they do appear to show images "brighter" due to the different gamma.
Far be it from me to promote a feud (O;, but Douglas has been quoting you, Colin, as a person who has seen examples of his enlarging algorithm at work. Douglas has said that you *agree* that it shows his magical algorithm at work..
>If you really did want to verify my claims, you would do as Colin D did and >be polite (even something less than insulting would do) in your doubt of >them. I sent him an interpolated 24"x 36" print for his perusal and he now >agrees that my claims are not false at all.
He has made this claim more than once, yet it doesn't seem to tie in with the conversation you had with him above.. Is Douglas truth-bending again?
I'd *love* to hear your comments on Douglas' enlargement, specifically:
1. Was it on gloss, or canvas?
2. If on canvas, how would you rate its 'resolution' (my personal opinion is that the type of canvas Doug uses would only show about 50-100 dpi at best, given its rough texture)
2.a. Does the image contain much fine detail (eg a cityscape from a lookout, or a detailed landscape), or is it a macro of flowers, or a portrait perhaps? (The latter type of image does not invite close inspection and will often enlarge far more than the normal ppi limits would suggest.)
3. Did he send you the original file, or state what camera it came from? What was its pixel dimensions, and what was the size of the print (was there any cropping?)
4. Are you familiar with enlargements done professionally from medium format film at these sizes? How would Douglas' print compare to such a print?
5. In other words, can Douglas do magic, or does he just have a big printer...?
Those questions may seem a little over the top, but I've seen Dougie at work with his 3-card tricks soooo many times..
And lastly, do you wanna sell Douglas' print? He won't give me one (strangely he doesn't like me!), and I'd love to take a look at it, and maybe scan it and show the results here. After all, HE's been using it to promote himself...
PS I betcha Annika would love to get hold of it, too! I'll outbid him though... (O;
ColinD wrote:
...
> Doug, I'm sorry you appear to not have received my emailed response to > your photograph. I did write an answer to you (looks back at old > emails) at this address: <douglas (at) photosbydouglas (dot) com>
> The email didn't bounce, so I presume it was delivered.
>>>A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' >>>display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot >>>display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a >>>person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no >>>assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
>>that is crap! >>The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may >>remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out >>to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.
> I think what the poster referred to is the different gamma on Macs, which is > a function of the video driver rather than the screen itself, and is an > arbitrary setting - using a tool such as Adobe Gamma Loader you can set up > your PC display to have a Mac-like gamma.
> So while Mac monitors themselves are more or less identical to > non-Mac-branded monitors, and have the same black- and white-points and same > luminance, they do appear to show images "brighter" due to the different > gamma.
....which is a user set-up issue and once again leaves me asking.. what's the diff !
> >>>A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' > >>>display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot > >>>display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a > >>>person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no > >>>assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
> >>that is crap! > >>The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may > >>remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out > >>to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.
> > I think what the poster referred to is the different gamma on Macs, which is > > a function of the video driver rather than the screen itself, and is an > > arbitrary setting - using a tool such as Adobe Gamma Loader you can set up > > your PC display to have a Mac-like gamma.
> > So while Mac monitors themselves are more or less identical to > > non-Mac-branded monitors, and have the same black- and white-points and same > > luminance, they do appear to show images "brighter" due to the different > > gamma.
> ....which is a user set-up issue and once again leaves me asking.. > what's the diff !
As I said, the "diff" is that the same image on a web page will appear "brighter" on a Mac than it will on a PC.
>>>>despite a hint of blowout (look carefully at the girl's face) and >>>>a horizon could possibly out by a little, some grainyness in the >>>>sky, there's not even the slightest bit of vignetting! You've >>>>nailed a real keeper here. >>>>For me however, next time you want to take a portrait of your >>>>parents, perhaps get dad to look at the camera and try to keep >>>>your assistant's hands out of the chips.
>>>You're being a bit picky about the blowout. You have to look >>>really hard to see it. The horizon and crop were probably done for >>>artistic reasons.
>>>-Mike
>>A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' >>display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot >>display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a >>person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no >>assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
>>Any attempt to judge a photo published on the Internet for it's >>grain, colour or contrast is at best, risky. Much better to judge >>Internet images on their content and appeal.
>>Composition is a personal thing. Some people have the rule of thirds >>so firmly ingrained in their mind, they lose sight of the appeal a >>scene may have when that rule is ignored. Likewise the horizon is >>subjective. My wife took a picture of a scene recently. She had the >>horizon at an angle. >>http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/margies/angle_horizon
>>Her pic is very interesting but when you level out the horizon, it >>is not so interesting. She concentrates on the subject, composing a >>picture she likes to see without regard for any "rules of >>composition". Some of her photos are used by publishers.
>>This is why I get quite passionate about someone making negative >>remarks about other people's photographs. Unless you are an Art >>curator in a gallery or a recognized art critic, making negative >>comments about a picture is a really poor form of entertainment.
>>Dave my have an opinion as do I but to voice that opinion when it >>negatively impacts on someone's work is quite impolite if you have >>no qualifications to criticize.
>>>>>A computer screen is no place to judge a photograph. Apple Macs' >>>>>display 15 ~ 25% brighter images than PC screens. LCD screens cannot >>>>>display the same range of contrast as CRT screens and even though a >>>>>person's system may be colour balanced for their needs, there is no >>>>>assurance it will match anyone else's colour.
>>>>that is crap! >>>>The apple mac screens are re-badges of a another brand... you may >>>>remember a recall on some mac screens about 18 months ago. It turned out >>>>to be a fault in manufacturing by LG.
>>>I think what the poster referred to is the different gamma on Macs,
> which is
>>>a function of the video driver rather than the screen itself, and is an >>>arbitrary setting - using a tool such as Adobe Gamma Loader you can set
> up
>>>your PC display to have a Mac-like gamma.
>>>So while Mac monitors themselves are more or less identical to >>>non-Mac-branded monitors, and have the same black- and white-points and
> same
>>>luminance, they do appear to show images "brighter" due to the different >>>gamma.
>>....which is a user set-up issue and once again leaves me asking.. >>what's the diff !
> As I said, the "diff" is that the same image on a web page will appear > "brighter" on a Mac than it will on a PC.
unless you know what you are doing and set your gamma appropriately... again, no difference!
|
