Photography 101

[footfootfoot]

OK, smelling the glove and feeling the love as we speak. Not if you really want to go head to head with me photographically, I must warn you that I am infinitely (that's a lazy 8 to you) more critical of my own work than you could ever be of mine.

Just so you know who you're dealing with...

[footfootfoot]

OK hombre, I'm back and here's the truth as I see it about your work. You better sit down.

A friend of mine wants to sell his work to a stock agency and they told him they don't even consider files made with less than a Canon EOS 1ds MKII or the Mark III with full-frame, 18/22.?MP sensors. (or equivalent) (see this website for a softer version of the hard news: http://www.all-things-photography.co...otography.html)

Why do I ask if you are sitting down? Well if you have 98,000 more images even close to the 36 you uploaded, thenyou are going to have to convince Tink that you need to
a) drop ~$10,000 on new camera gear cause you will need the file size and bit depth. and
b)You will need to quit your hard won job and devote your time to making more images like this.

Your work is really exceptional, there were a few doggy pics in the 36 but only because they were in the company of so much good work. But that is the problem of being in the 99th percentile when you are next to work that goes up to 11... 99 seems so far from the top.

Before you do quit your job, I'd float some of these past a true pro image editor at a stock house and see what they have to say about marketability. EG If these were 50MB images would you have a need for them.

But they are good. Very good. Do you really have 97, 964 more?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Sure Bruce, it's attitudes like that which have caused the world wide shortage and subsequent price gouging of pixels...

That's the penalty of free market pixelonomy. Screw those third world cameras.:p

[BigV]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

yeah picasa is great. links.
98,000? Buy a video camera. That's nearly 70 minutes of movie at 24 frames per second.

At one frame per second you've got 68 hours of movie there hombre.

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

snip--
Remember a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and argument is only as strong as it's weakest point, a portfolio of 98,000 images is the product of a very soft heart. You need more ruthlessness.
--snip

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

snip--
98 k or 98 million, they are yours, and you have the right to keep them, until they pry your picassa password from your cold dead hands...--snip

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

snip--
But they are good. Very good. Do you really have 97, 964 more?

This 98k number discussion has been bugging me, so I wish to respond.

Yes. I do have over 98k files in my Pictures folder. At least when I posted that number it was at 98,024. Some were subdirectories, some were movies, some were index files, I wasn't discriminating much. By now that number is higher still. I shoot pictures every day.

And I was aiming for maximum inclusiveness when I made the index of images for the mosaic program so it has the maximum possible choices from which to make the mosaics.

But it is a little misleading for a couple reasons. One, a big chunk of those pictures were taken by a robot, not me. They were exposures taken one minute apart for assembly into a time lapse movie of a construction project. That accounts for about 33k of the files.

Also, I recovered SonofV, the Elder's hd for him some time ago, and those picture files make up a big chunk of that 98k, approximately 18k files. That leaves me to account for about 46k images, rounding down. I took most of them. Only several hundred are cataloged. (Almost) All of them are well filed in my tree structure, explained elsewhere. Still, that's a lot of pictures.

I'm going to address footfootfoot's blush inducing remarks in a little bit, but for now I will plainly answer his question. No, the other 97,964 aren't as good as the ones I showed him. I probably have a generous double handful I consider equally good, but at max, only a few per thousand.

Which brings me to why I take (and keep) so many images. Let me draw you a picture...

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

propose you upload a set of 36 consecutive photos to picassa or some such and we can have a discussion about actual images and not *your relationship* to those images.

This was really really hard. Not only am I loathe to discard images, I have to say, there are very few images that I don't have a relationship with. (my language skills are fading here....) I see things differently when it comes to the pictures. I do see them as individual images, but in the context of the memories they stimulate when I view them. The best way I can describe it is that they're much like musical notes or chords, or even phrases. The pictures belong together just as a guitar riff belongs in a song, and a song to an album. You might recognize a particular riff, but if it's one you really like, you think of the whole song when you hear it. The pictures evoke a similar experience with me. I don't just collect ringtone samples of my favorite songs, I have the whole song.

Your compliments are enormously gratifying, footfootfoot (and others who have responded privately--THANK YOU). But those individual, contextless images are for me like the "DUM dum, DUM dum" made with a cello voice. I hear that and I think of Jaws. Each of those pictures (my best work) is like a great musical hook. It can be admired by itself, but it needs context to permit its fullest expression.

I've reread this post and I'm only partly convinced I've communicated my thoughts. It's not an excuse, it's a burden, frankly. But one I don't mind.

[footfootfoot]

Keep talking... We're listening...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

It can be admired by itself, but it needs context to permit its fullest expression.

Of course, but you do realize for me/we, each picture must stand on it'd own merits because we don't know the song, don't you?

So only pictures that can stand on there own, should be displayed to your adoring fans, and the rest belong in your diary.

Don't forget, you asked for help in pruning the forest... then you tell us you don't want to. Make up my mind, dude.

Oh, btw... nice pics.

[Stormieweather]

I <3 BigV's pics...but where are the ones being referred to in this thread? Am I missing a link to them? Or was it a private party?

[xoxoxoBruce]

You missed the orgy?

[BigV]

Eastern Washington




Discovery Park



Chasing the sun



Destruction Island from Beach 6, Olympic Peninsula



North Cascades



West of Thorp in winter



Mauna Lani, Hawaii



Liberty, Washinton



Robinson Canyon



Teary



Seastack at Riatlo Beach, Olympic Peninsula



Screaming trees



South of Cape Lookout, Tillamook, Oregon



Close formation



Two Union Square, downtown Seattle



On the way to Blake Island



Staves



Sk8tr

[BigV]

Made for looking through, for looking at



Our little pot o' gold



A very happy Father's Day



Leap of faith



Scary Halloween



aaaahhhhhhh...



Captain of all he surveys



so tiny



Fiddleheads



Desert color



Lush



Sticky color



Tiger Swallowtail posing



Strong



Flying turtle



Barn swallow



Lotus and koi



Spotted Puffer

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

I <3 BigV's pics...but where are the ones being referred to in this thread? Am I missing a link to them? Or was it a private party?

It was a private showing for a while. Here they are for all to see now. Please review and comment. I welcome all constructive feedback.

[Clodfobble]

These are really, really great BigV... but aren't these the best out of the 98,000? I thought foot's suggestion was to gather 36 consecutive images, in order to demonstrate how to determine which of the 36 was a stunning shot like the above and which were byproducts. Do you have 98,000 pictures of completely different subjects that all look like the above, or do you have, say, 100 other photos of that skateboarder in various states of motion?

[BigV]

Hmmm.... Clodfobble, I didn't read footfootfoot's suggestion that way at all. But when I reread his remarks after your observation, I think you might be right.

If you are, then I simply surrender. There are just toooo many places where 36 consecutive images could be run up and shot down. I have tracts of pictures that don't approach this level (imho). It would be embarassing and pointless. Those pictures aren't really for public consumption.

Your skateboarder example, yes, I have 26 images in that set. You're looking at one I like the best. Tink picked it out, actually. But I wouldn't impose that set on y'all. I'd be embarassed.

I am shy about it, but now that you mention it, maybe I should....*thinking out loud*... Another example would be a trip to the zoo. The picture "Strong" up there, that was taken at the zoo. I show 191 images in that set, and I only posted that one. There *are* some other nice pictures in that set, not in my "top 36" (more or less...), but still, nice pictures. Snapshots, they're family snapshots of a trip to the zoo with the boys.

Now, a set like that might have a gem like "Strong", and some other well made pictures, but it will inevitably have many pictures that have value to me, as Dad, or Uncle, and be... a boring forgettable waste of your time. *I* choose to keep pictures like that. But I wouldn't inflict them on you in our regular social intercourse.

The Creepy Crawlies thread comes to mind. This most recent camping trip gave me a chance to take a bunch of pictures. Who cares about bug pictures. I certainly didn't take them for the express purpose of showing you dwellars a big ant... I took them for my own enjoyment. But! The thread popped up, and now I had pictures to share and a reason to share them.

I don't suggest that those ten images are great pictures, not even by my amateur standards. But they fit in the thread. I take a lot of pictures suitable for inclusion in a conversation with my friends.

[/thinking out loud]

blah blah blah... what a windbag.

You make a good observation, Clodfobble. Thanks for giving me something more to think about. I might just do what you suggest.

[footfootfoot]

Um yeah, that's what I thought I said. The idea when looking at a set of images, in this case 36 since that relates to this stuff people used to use called film (It's a long story, just trust me on this one) where 36 was pretty much the longest roll of film you could get.

So you look at a set from a single roll and that is your "batting average" if you will. If you hit the ball out of the park every frame, well then, you are hired. If you only get one or two good shots out of a roll, then you should keep your day job, but not quit photography either. That's more than many people get.

My point was to post 36 consecutive images, I'm sure I used that word, to see hoe frequently you hit the ball out of the park slugger. Also looking at a set of images of a single subject tells a lot about how you approach making a photo. Do you stay with a single M.O. and hammer away or do you hunt around searching for the right POV? Do you change lenses (or zoom) or do you stay with a single lens?

In martial arts there are said to be ten different directions an attack can come from; the four cardinal points, EWNS, plus the ordinal points, and above and below. You can approach your subject the same way. Decide which position gives you the best result. Each position has meaning. Generally speaking, when shot from below, the subject is monumentalized, from above the subject is diminished. These are generalities and not rules, there are many other elements which conspire to present an overall effect.

A question to constantly be asking yourself as you look through the viewfinder (instead of the lcd screen) is "Why am I doing it this way? why am I in this spot instead of over there? What am I trying to say about this subject and is this the best way to get that across? What can I do differently? What could I have done differently? And finally, the crusher: Is this the best I can do? or as someone else once asked me:
"Are you satisfied with that..?" Another teacher I had set the standard for a well resolved compostion (note the use of the word resolved, for it is a problem) as being such that if any single element were changed the entire thing would fail. Again, one teacher, one opinion, but very helpful excercise.

And when all else fails some fortune cookie wisdom:
If you hit the bullseye every time, then the target is probably too close.

Some awesome images here BigV, keep it up.

My secret to increasing my batting average is to destroy any negative that doesn't pass muster. My pile of negatives gets smaller, but the ratio of good shots gets bigger.

[BigV]

An update on my journey with Picasa.

I continue to use this program as my principal image indexing tool. I also use it for lightweight editing, mostly straightening, exposure corrections, cropping, etc.

But it has a feature I really love and I'm using more and more. As I've said before, I am mostly just a snapshotter, and my favorite subject is people. I won't embarrass myself by calling pictures with faces in them "portraits", they're not. But they do have faces and Picasa knows this. It has a feature called face detection. This is pretty cool. It can scan a photo and pick out the section of the image that (according to its rules) is a face. It has made a couple (out of thousands) of mistakes, but mostly it's pretty "smart". It shows a crop of the face of a given image, resized so the face fills a thumbnail and then gives you a chance to add the photo to a special kind of album called a people album. In a shot that has more than one face, it will detect all the faces, show each of them in a thumbnail, and give you a chance to add that picture to each of the corresponding people albums.

A word about albums. An album is a collection of pictures. In Picasa, albums work like tags. A picture can belong to more than one album by having more than one tag associated with it. When viewing an album, all the pictures in it are selected from the database and shown as a collection. People albums, or People, work just the same. They're albums that have the title of a person's name, containing images that have been detected by Picasa to contain a face.

Back to People and faces. Not only does Picasa have face detection, it also has face *recognition*. This is scary cool. Once you've seeded Picasa's People albums with a few (or more) examples of a given face, it will continue to scan through the library looking for faces that match the ones already associated with a given person. When it finds some it *recognizes* it will suggest them to you. "Do these faces belong in this People album?". It's awesome.

Some of the the things you can do with this is to click on a Person, and see all the pictures that have that person in them. Also, there's a function called Face Movie, where the contents of a People album can be used in a special kind of slide show where the slides are put together in a face aligned movie. Here's a youtube video of Picasa's demo of this function. I think their model looks a bit like little Miss York at the beginning.



At this time, I have 214 People. And I have 18,875 faces detected but not yet categorized. It's a LOT. And it feels like pushing back the tide, but I take bites at it as I go, I think I'm making more forward progress than backward, so I carry on. Here's a typical screenshot of what I am making my way through.

I've circled a couple points of interest. SonofV appears in the blue circles. The red circles identify a couple interesting shots, one is a mask, not really a face, I'll throw that one away. The others show really dark faces in these thumbnails. I can double click on any of the thumbnails and get the whole picture, from which I might be able to recognize the person given the context. And the yellow circle in the upper right surrounds the slider showing how many screensful of this work I have ahead of me. Fun!!