July 14, 2014 at 4:57 pm #7176
IAN–My apologise–the grey cells fall into place—-yes I have experienced the rotational problem. It seems to be between the gallery and insert. Happened a couple of times–horizontal on computer to become vertical. The DJ on my laptop has been ok but will check on desktop PC. Thanks for the “sharpness” article also Ian—you have built my hopes up. Ian I have received a dvd of Rushton Open and some amazing photo”s–if you would like to have see I will send on to you. Thanks for comments and sorry slow on the take up. kenJuly 14, 2014 at 9:41 pm #7179
I agree with Ian Ken, I find your first photograph the most interesting of your entries. It asks questions, has motion and some emotion. I think the post box is so important for the composition.
I’ve also experienced the mysterious rotating photo phamton on my PC. Demons at work?
Personally, I like to see something sharp in a photo so that it stands out from the rest of the picture more. Of course a lot depends on the subject and what you’re trying to achieve.
Good Cricket shots Wallace. I like the second one best. Airborne and a concentrated expression. I didn’t know cricket could be so intense.July 14, 2014 at 9:58 pm #7181
It’s about time I entered a couple of people shots. These are just for a bit of fun:
July 14, 2014 at 10:05 pm #7183
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Peter Robinson.
Two very humourous shots Pete. Tutbury at the top and Crich second. British Humour at its best.Both very hot days and thanks for being chauffer again for Dee and myself.July 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm #7187
Thanks Meg. I thought they’d put a smile on ya dial. They know how to keep cool in Derbyshire.July 15, 2014 at 11:05 pm #7189
A couple of really fun shots Pete. I had a lovely time
I will add some of mine into the mix. I loved this lady … Sandra Lemons and Little Lola the dog … at Crich.
Daddy wouldn’t buy me a Bow Wow!July 15, 2014 at 11:37 pm #7193
Pete / Dee >>> Fine contributions from both!July 16, 2014 at 3:56 pm #7197
YES THESE ARE LOVELY PHOTO”S —ALL OF THEM–Those of Delores remind me of the classy posters showing the great Walt Disney films—Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Super images and rightfully placed here for” people ” and would grace any exhibition.
[The rest of Ken’s very interesting post has been moved to the “All About Photography” Forum for further discussion]
July 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm #7200
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Ian McNab.
Very interesting images Dee, as I know we all had a hard time fighting through the throngs of people and other photographers to get the images. These are really lovely and a good take on People theme and street photography.July 16, 2014 at 8:51 pm #7210
That’s a good set of images Dolores. You’ve got natural backgrounds without any distractions and the subjects are all involved with each other which makes them more interesting.July 16, 2014 at 11:30 pm #7218
For the record ( as the debate on re enactments now moved to another section was started in response to these pictures) …
The central image is slightly posed although taken when the individuals in it were just naturally interacting with each other and not static.
Both the Variety image and Bow Wow were taken during a live performance in a tent in difficult lighting. One from the sides and the other from a seat three rows back. The subjects were moving, singing and dancing and are amateurs. I did not pose / direct or instruct them in any way just waited for the right moment as always!July 17, 2014 at 6:53 am #7222
But of course they are–re-enactments—taking a snapshot of someone else”s skill. All very beautiful photo”s. They must have their place. My issue is similar to “montages” these re-enactments for the reasons described would be better served in a category of their own .July 17, 2014 at 9:36 am #7223
I’m afraid I don’t entirely agree with you on this, Ken. Skilfully photographing a witty or dramatic scene at a re-enactment event can result in an engaging or striking picture. Isn’t this akin to photographing any other ‘performance’ – theatre or ballet, a concert, street theatre, a parade, carnival etc? I don’t have a problem with such pictures in ‘General’ or ‘Mono’. And as they are typically single-shot photographs rather than composites, they shouldn’t appear in a ‘Montage’ section.
The bit that concerns me is the number of pictures of people in period costume and settings (often very good pictures of people in period costume and settings, as some of this month’s theme photos are) that are accepted as entries in competitions intended specifically for portraits.
This month’s CPS theme is ‘People’ not ‘Portraits’, so we don’t this problem!July 17, 2014 at 12:11 pm #7225
YES IAN–Can I condense my thoughts —not easily. Your last point Ian does not apply as we do not have a “portrait” section. So my issue is two part. Regarding portraits I have no axe to grind as with regret not now into portraits. Having experienced when portraits had its own section–eg–the work of the late Howard Edwards–and now Dave Barton—to accept other types of photographs of people –for me are not portraits. Maybe that”s only a name so does it matter.??? So no reason why with the proliferation of enactments they should not go with montages—as now RECORD–PICTORIAL and Portraits are in one section. Things change and will continue to do so. Record and Portraits used to be very strong sections , now they are not and so brought in with Pictorial –General as we now define it.———–So what”s my issue with Re-Enactments,None whatsoever–some -many–really excellent photo”s. However my gut feeling is that it is not in the interest of good photography to be judged along with General because it is so easy to snap these very high quality images with so little skill and reap such considerable success . The skill is by the artiste dressing up and putting on amazing poses which as previously described like photographing a Renoir or Constable. New members to club photography could very well think what”s the point of all the effort setting up for proper portraits or getting up early to capture that landscape–just go to Tutbury and its in the bag. It has become an uneven playing field–is that not the reason why Nature was hived off?? The re-enactments are a bit of a phenomenon just in these recent years, the likes never before experienced as I recall and so creating an uneven playing field. I was wrong to liken them with “Birds on Sticks” thank goodness an era past. My apologise for making the comparison as photographing birds on sticks did require some skill!! (I know I am) . So that broadly covers my view and it bothers me not one bit that others do not agree. What I do expect though from Committee members is that as a rank and file member “my” views are taken into consideration. Thank you for reading.July 18, 2014 at 8:28 am #7231
My unease about montages is simple; their composition is a construct and not a primary capture as an original photograph is (whether set up or not) so they bypass a vital photographic skill and should not be judged alongside straight photographs. I have no objection to anybody doing anything they like with their pictures and some of the outcomes are very enjoyable but m0ntages have an inherent feature which makes them incomparable with photographs. In these days of digital manipulation it can, of course, be very hard to tell if the picture is a composite or not and so making rules which distinguish between them is difficult, but not impossible (and certainly not impractical).
It is only in large competitions where this matters but note that we do separate Nature pictures. Why? I would suggest it must go back to the notion that the subjects are “unfair competition”.
It does seem, from last Saturday’s PDI competition, composites or montages are not as successful as they used to be. I would have preferred a rule to separate them, but judges becoming disinclined to credit them is another way to put back the balance.
On the other matter, as I said elsewhere, one should try to avoid giving any credit to how “difficult” a shot may have been because we just do not know. The credit for “capture” is valid when it is manifest in the picture, such as the ball just on the f0otballer’s toe, the foot of the leaping man 1″ above the puddle etc.
General note: If you want a copyright sign, thus ©, it is ALT 0,1,6,9.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.