Daniela Rocha wrote:
> Hi all!!

> Here is my fantastic picture from this week.  It's really swell isnt it!!

> I hope you all love it.  I think I'm getting better every week at this
> photography game.

> http://www.ttop.com/bfh3/photos/12_11_00/Pro%20Boner%20drinking%20bad...

"Fred" <f...@ner.com> wrote in message news:44ca1ce9_3@x-privat.org...
> Daniela Rocha wrote:
> Since when did Daniel post from optusnet?

Daniela Rocha wrote:

"Daniela Rocha" <da...@gay.photos.com> wrote in message

> Hi all!!

> Here is my fantastic picture from this week.  It's really swell isnt it!!

> I hope you all love it.  I think I'm getting better every week at this
> photography game.

> http://www.ttop.com/bfh3/photos/12_11_00/Pro%20Boner%20drinking%20bad...

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.

silent lamb wrote:
> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in
> news:44ca9146$0$498$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> 03.brisbane.pipenetwo
> rks.com.au:

>> 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

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.

> 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

"silent lamb" <no....@nt.use.1> wrote in message

> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-...@or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in
> news:44ca9146$0$498$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> 03.brisbane.pipenetwo
> rks.com.au:

>> 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.