Jump to content

Bizair

Verified
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bizair

  1. My view as well. As to some coments in the thread about it turning misery into "art". Sorry, I don't agree. It was a photojournalism award for goodness sake, not some art competition. The photographer was on an assignment to tell the world a story, and one that needs telling. And he did it superbly. As to some comments about keeping the image true (or words to that effect). No image from any camera, film or digital, is true to any actual scene. We all know that there is a vast dynamic range differential between any capturing device, and what the eye/brain combination "sees".
  2. I think most agree that Alamy's rule, for many images, is silly. Personally, I think it is an over cautious approach, but it's Alamy's sandpit. It may be that such a hard and fast rule overcomes any subjective assessments which I suppose could create problems. Ken
  3. Greater that 4. At a quick look I counted 6 clearly visible, I'm sure there are many more with magnificing glass. I would agree, however, that none of those people are likely to be able to identify themselves. Nevertheless, that's Alamy rules. Ken
  4. Nis, I agree with you in some respects - showing poverty in an ad-hoc way is inappropriate. But the world is what it is. And any image that so powerfully exposes those in unfortunate or sad circumstances is needed IMO to get the rest of us who often whine about trivial matters, thinking about those less fortunate than ourselves. We in the western world (for want of a better term) so often whine about the trivia of life, when so much of the world is so much worse off than ourselves. I'm sorry if this goes against long-standing thoughts or values, but I've seen so much of it first hand t
  5. Make sure that you copy the image URL from wherever you get it into the "picture" window from your right click menu. On all websites, Alamy included, an image file is in a separate folder to the complete webpage. Just right click ( or MAC equiv) the image, not the complete webpage, and paste the URL into the window that pops up. This does not work on iPads thought AFAICT, so do it from your desktop. Ken
  6. It's a powerful image of something that has world attention. The fact that the photographer used post processing to enhance the impact of the image in no way makes this an exploitation or cheating on photojournalism in my opinion. As to exploitation of the war ravaged, extreme poverty or other unfortunate circumstances in our world go, I would have thought that media or photojournalism that shows us what us actually happening in more unfortunate parts of the world is a good thing, and about as far from exploitation as you can get. Who can forget the Vietnam War image of a young girl
  7. I have replaced a few, but you do need fairly simple backgrounds to get decent results. Once trees are involved it becomes too time-consuming to be worth it, if not almost impossible. However, as you say it can work. I used to think it was a bit of a cheat, but then I remembered my Dad, who was a pro back in the 60's used to have "nice sky" negatives to drop in on top of boring flat skies. Took a bit more skill in them days, mind you! I allways acknowledge digital manipulation and cite what has been done. Eg. "Sky changed for aesthetic reasons". Up to the publisher then to accept or not.
  8. I always follow doctor's advice. Thanks Kumar. BTW does your advice also include diabeties 2 sufferers? Only joking, all under control. Ken
  9. Shopping Excess? Excessive signage? Excessive speed?
  10. Have a look at some of the replace sky tutorials in PS. They are not really applicable for all images but for some you could not tell the difference. I've used the process sparingly to good effect, but the extra PS work involved makes me question the worth of my efforts, given the prices currently obtained. Each to their own I guess. I like the challenge of learning new PS processing, but I acknowledge that it is not for everyone. Ken
  11. I normally shoot in raw only, but I'm am interested in user experience in outputting jpeg only. It would save a fair deal of post processing. I haven't noticed any significant difference except when shooting at higher ISO's eg above 800 ISO. Any other experience is welcomed. Ken
  12. RAW plus LR4 correction fixes almost all CA problems. My main config is 5 D III pls canon 17-40 lens. No problems whatsoever with CA since LR4 appeared on the scene. I also use a couple of pimes, a Canon 50mm f1.4, and on my 7 d's the Canon 60mm macro, again though, no CA problems with LR4, and the EF-S 10-22 wide zoom. There are othe alternatives in PS to fix CA, google is your friend here. Ken
  13. I can understand that there may be reasons why some people may not want their images linked to their names. But I am troubled as to why? The obvious question to me is: Why upload such images in the first place if they are problematic? I'm not suggesting that it makes anybody an underworld figure, it's just that I don't really understand the reasons. Happy to be convinced otherwise. Ken
  14. I tried Gimp some years ago and I'm sure that it has developed dramatically since then. But I am very happy with the general workflow and capabilities of LR4, and I'll no doubt buy LR5 when it is released. As to pS, I have a license for the CS6 suite, but I'm unsure of the new subscription model. Considering how often I move images to PS nowadays, I am inclined to give it a miss. Might even download the latest Gimp version and see how it goes. Ken
  15. And a perfectly valid approach it that's what suite us as individuals. Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a tech head that needs new stimulus from time to time, so I generally bite the bullet and spend the money. But that's only me. Ken
  16. I agree with most of what has been observed in the thread. The old forum had a lot of very useful info, but in some respects somewhat dated. The new forum is giving us a new start and, refreshingly, without a lot of the niggleing that occurred on the old forum. It seemed to me that a few posters on the old forum who had lots of posts seemed to think that this was a badge of honour that needed to be acknowledged. I like the new approach. Regardless of your past posting experience we now seem to have our opinions, questions and general thoughts reponded to in a constructive and profes
  17. It's not about us guys . Photogs using PS are probably a very small percentage of the overall Adobe user environment. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Adobe has taken so long to recognize where their main user base is, and it ain't us. Many other software companies moved to subscription licencing for commercial use many years ago. I'm a retired CIO heading a large IT branch in the public sector. Subscription licencing was simply the way we did most of our software licencing. It helped in many ways, mainly through budgeting. For us it was win-win. It helped us, and it also helped
  18. I have a G12 as a P&S and they are very sharp. But the noise at anything above ISO 200 is a problem. I understand though that the newer 4/3 and APS-C sensors on the more recent P&S's are much better. My current 5D III processed in LR4 shoots noise down in flames. For the moment I'll stick with having to carry the 5D III and heavy lenses around. It's just better all round for my purposes. But each to their own of course. Ken
  19. In over 150 submissions I've had a few failures. Not many, but enough to realize that it is a voluntary imposition. If you think an image may not pass after doing what Alamy has asked eg. Review each image at 100%, then don't submit it hoping that it will get through. We'll all miss some from time to time, but in the end, Alamy make the rules and we have to comply Sorry if his isn't he answer you expected, but they are Alamy rules. Ken.
  20. I just leave them in. Already answered the question regarding property that requires a release. If answer is Yes, it's automatically RM, so it's up to the publisher to judge. I'd be careful though about major car accidents. I haven't any on line but I would probably blur a number plate in that instance. There may be other reasons but can't think of any at the moment. Ken
  21. Adobe has responded to concerns of photographers: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc Ken
  22. I think the FAQ is an excellent idea, used on many forums. Alamy would have to organize/manage such a feature I would envisage. They might feel this is too much effort thought for what is in effect a very secondary function to their efforts in selling our images. Ken
  23. As we're now into the second week of the new forum what are your views on how it is working? My view is that the number of posts seem to be lower, but of higher quality. And the amount of nasty or antagonistic posting has been lower. But I'm fairly new and don't hold any rights to longevity on forum posting, which seems to have been a token of value on the old forum. What do others think? Ken
  24. Each to their own of course, but the developments in PS, but more particularly from LR3 to LR4 has IMO been quite dramatic. It has completely changed my work flow. It really is worth downloading trial applications and spending a bit of time trying out new features. My experience only of course. Ken
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.