[Curious]

Flavivirus post what you like. every week. think your entry though carefully, trying to make it as good as it can be. some weeks that will be mostly technical, some mostly interpretation and on a few lucky occasions both will come together.

be prepared to do really badly in the voting. especially on ones you really like and think others will.

then one week you will enter a quick snapshot from your archives and it will win in a landslide.

only then will you truly understand the “certain bitterness” you see here about voting.

now to be a bit more serious. the voters by and large don’t have our skill level nor equipment. they are used to looking at either their snapshots of aunt Chelsea’s. you know the “did it come out” crowd. look at last week. of the top ten numbers one and three are cute/funny. #s 2,4,6,7 and 8 are strict dancing shots. your second entry (ranked #4) could be any couple kissing without the caption*. #s 9 and 10 again are variations on the theme. the voting goes all over the place depending on factors we can’t control. this is non juried voting and fark is known for beer and boobies, not art appreciation.

*it’s a good photo. well composed and well lit. it’s critically sharp, there is good separation of the foreground and background but IMHO w/o the caption it doesn’t say dance. also note that of the top ten only your second entry and # 1 have real good separation of the subject. yes, i’m being really picky here but with the other 8 one looks a bit to see the subject. but the voters aren’t as picky as the results demonstrate. hell i’m not that picky when it comes to voting either. i vote for those that stay true to the theme and/or are good technically. not always the same thing.

to be fair the bitterness is more frustration. we all have had shots we had great hopes for go down in flames. and in my case at least i’ve had shots that i wasn’t all that proud of do real well. it evens out.

my pet peeve is off topic shots. but i’m anal about strict adherence to the theme and description. other folks have different peeves. OTOH the consensus is that we are here to have fun and show off our work. so do that and don’t worry about stepping on toes. in time you will see what garners votes and if that is something that you do normally — great. if not, well you may not get as many votes but you will get comments and learn things while having a bit of fun. because there aren’t any fabulous prizes.

[Curious]

well you expect to see bugs in the summer.

if coding was easy even i could do it. and since i can’t (and am egocentric) then it must be hard.

so thanks for all your hard work. i seriously doubt most of us know how much time you put in for our benefit.

[Curious]

welcome Flavivirus. nice galleries, you’ve got a good eye.

Elsinore has several good points re voting and equipment. and we all will get a chance to see how innovative we can be in a couple of weeks when it comes to off camera lighting. the theme is open enough that you won’t have to break the bank to make your pictures. and keep in mind that different light sources produce different color effects. that can be used to your advantage if you play with both the light source and your camera settings.

[Curious]

just FYI i got nothing for tonight. good luck to those that enter.

[Curious]

google may make it easy but they are playing hell with your photos. i took a look at some of mine that are the same size in pixels and they are 6 or 7 times the size in KB. you have some real nice shots there that the compression took all the sharpness from. for example “photo 27 of 191” which downloads as DSC_0053-1.jpg is a butterfly on a lantana (?) flower and looks like it was properly focused and should be critically sharp but just doesn’t bring it off. instead of popping off the screen it’s soft. not blurry or out of focus just soft — as in not as crisp as it should be.

and i’m not trying to be harsh or super critical here. more of the IMHO type of thing. my photos and skill level don’t put me in any position to throw rocks.

so three more questions. 1) what, if any, crop factor does the D50 have. in other words is that full frame sensor or 1.5 which would make the 300mm effectively a 450mm? 2) when you took those what was the original file size 3) what was the camera set to – jpg, fine, super fine?

[Curious]

Incase you didn’t realize you can click on the picture for a larger version that isn’t too far off the original.

that’s why i ask. the small size looks good but the larger isn’t sharp.

i was shooting with my 70-300 zoom saturday at full zoom and ended up leaned against a dumpster to get steady. i do have image stabilization in the camera body but even with it i haven’t learned how to hold that lens yet. got a monopod for christmas but hadn’t brought it along since i wasn’t planning to use the long lens. the monopod was <$20 from wal-mart and works really well if you push down on it some. better than either of my mid sized tripods do. but they aren't really designed for full sized DSLRs.

[Curious]

well it’s a darned lot better than what i shot this last weekend. is the file size due to limits imposed by the hosting site? i ask because i’m not sure how much sharper it might be if not compressed.

but catching a humming bird at all is good.

[Curious]

kids now days.

google is your friend

[Curious]

an update for anyone who cares. the scanner works well except for not having a setting for 120 and 4 x 5 film holders. there is a film size tab missing in the “configuration” setting. the documentation says it’s there but it’s not. there is a work around but it’s a bit cumbersome. so far online tech support hasn’t been any help.

the UI is not intuitive but can be figured out. you really have to pay attention when setting up from session to session especially if changing film type. or i’m not too bright and don’t watch what i’m doing, which is just as likely.

a big plus — the rebate check arrived this weekend. seven week turnaround.

i haven’t done too much of my film but did a lot for a friend. she had lots of old negatives from her childhood (50 years ago +/-) and later on in every format you can imagine. 620, 120, 126, 35 and even a 110 strip. mostly b/w but some color. while it took several hours to do all she wanted the results were worth it.

so on a scale of 1-10 overall a 7.5… ease of scan (software) a 5 or 6… speed of scan 8 (even high res stuff goes reasonably quickly) and the results 9 or 10 as far as usable for the intended purpose. i haven’t really pushed the scanner yet for a super high res output, super clean for a big poster sized print but expect that you could get that if you were willing to spent some time tweaking the settings and had a “good” negative.

so if any of you have $300 (while the rebate is in effect)($400 normally) and want a scanner that will do pretty much any size format film you throw at it up to 8 x 10 the Epson 4990 Photo is my choice.

not a paid endorsement, not affiliated with epson, no ax to grind here.

[Curious]

your small font comment notwithstanding that seems like a good idea. it might reduce the light slightly but with TTL metering — so what.

let us know what the test results are.

[Curious]

who has a background in shooting low budget posters and covers (magazine, CD, DVD, etc).

low budget notwithstanding that’s a crappy photo. or really bad reproduction.

[Curious]

well i have my one park shot and one semi garden. couldn’t find the botanical gardens today in city park so that’s out and there’s nothing else in the archives that really fits. which is a bit sad given the umpteen hundreds of flower shots.

[Curious]

I’m sooo sorry I missed this one!

i’m sorry you missed it too. i was looking forward to your boats.

[Curious]

and hit it with a flashlight while I took the picture to create a kinda cool silhouette effect.

don’t you mean splatter effect?

personally i don’t see any difference in using stands or your friends to hold the lights.

[Curious]

schnee would that gig be the conference room shots? and what lens(es) will you have?

[Author]

Posts