^Sorry, I guess my confusion/wild guess was based on Whistler’s earlier influence in France by the better known artists of the era, which is why I failed to identify the CMA works  :-)

 

http://nga.gov.au/WHISTLER/janess.cfm

 

"In Paris Whistler met the artist Henri Fantin-Latour, who introduced him to the bohemian haunts of Paris, most notably the Café Voltaire, where the young American befriended some of the emerging artists including Edouard Manet, Felix Braquemond and Alphonse Legros, who later became key players in the French art scene. It is likely that Whistler would have been aware of the art of the leading French Realist, Gustave Courbet, who was a controversial figure in French art circles owing to his choice of contemporary settings that dispense with the reliance on historical, classical or allegorical themes. The influence of French Realism is apparent in Whistler’s first major exercise in printmaking, Twelve etchings from nature 1858, also known as the ‘French set’, that consist of a series of views of Paris and the surrounding countryside.

 

During 1858, eager to see more of Rembrandt’s art, Whistler set off with the artist Ernest Delannoy on a trip to Amsterdam. But the journey was cut short because Whistler ran out of funds. His intention was to tour northern France, Luxembourg and the Rhineland taking sketchbooks and copper plates to etch with him. Though he failed to reach the Dutch capital, a selection of rural views drawn in situ in the careful and unglamorous manner of the French Barbizon artists also formed part of the ‘French set’. These were in contrast to the figure studies of urban Paris drawn from life. In this way the ‘French set’ conformed to the influential poet and critic Charles Baudelaire’s call for ‘modern’ subject-matter — a demand that increasingly gained support among younger artists."

So I picked up the Nikon D3000 last week from Dodd (they also gave me a Nikon S210 for free).  I have been happily snapping some pics - but still definitely learning the camera.  I do have a question - My pictures are all about 2MB in size, should I change the settings on my camera to make them smaller?  Also, I tried emailing some pics via gmail and they were absolutely huge when viewed in the email, how can I shrink the size of pics I have already taken.

 

This is my favorite picture taken so far, not sure if it is a "good" picture, but I think it looks pretty cool.

 

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

 

Corey if you still have XP the Power Toy image resizer  is the easiest tool to resize pictures to use as attachments in e-mail and for blogs. You just right click on a file and the resizing options are right in the drop down menu. If you have vista or windows 7 google it because I know some people have recoded it to work in those OSes. If you have a mac, no clue/

 

 

BTW, I know this an open ended question and there is a lot of discussion in the thread above but the wife and I are looking at getting a starter DSLR, any brands or models that we should stay away from? Especially some that would be on clearance right now and would have a tempting price tag. Currently we have a "hybrid" point and shoot Kodak that has most of the adjustment features of a DSLR but it is showning it's age and the shutter lag is horrible.

 

... Sometimes deals are "too good to be true" and include older versions of the lenses which tend to be lacking in comparison to the newest kit lenses ...

 

True. There may be exceptions, but I think a manufacturer's kit from a local retailer is more likely to have current versions than a dealer-bundled "kit" offered by an on-line vendor. That's especially true if, as you note, the on-line deal is "too good to be true." Local retailers need to turn their inventory frequently and don't maintain a warehouse full of stuff, so your purchase is more likely to be current-version.

 

I'm possibly repeating myself (I do that; chalk it up to senioritis) but I've found little advantage in buying Nikon on-line instead of from the local shop, because most sellers' prices closely follow the MSRP. I'd guess it's pretty much the same with Canon or any other major name brand.

 

On-line vendors' shipping & handling sometimes nearly offsets any savings I might get from avoiding sales tax, and it's worth it to me to spend a little extra to support a local merchant whose profits go back into local wages, property taxes, etc. I know the local shop is honest, and they've gone beyond what they had to to help me out with a problem in the past.

Thanks for the tips guys.

 

I have a D3000 with a 55 mm stock lens. I bought some zeikos 55 mm filters but can for the life of me figure out how to get them on the lens. Do I need some sort of attachment?  Am I missing something here?

If 55mm is the focal length of the lens, it is not necessarily the diameter filter you need.  There should be a filter size symbol on the end of the lens (a circle with a line through it).  You can buy a step-up or step-down ring for a few bucks rather than return the filters.

I see. It says 52. I guess that makes sense. No big deal on the filters. I got some cheap ones off amazon for $10. Thanks for the help.

You can get a step up ring for that Cory. Find a 52->55 step up for that, and you'll be able to use that. Since the 55mm lens isn't wide enough, you shouldn't have any vignetting issues with it.

Found one for $5.88 on Amazon.  Thanks for the help.  Now I know that when I buy neutral density filters I need 52mm.

You should look into the Cokin Creative Filter system for ND and other graduated filters:

http://www.cokin.fr/ico1-p1.html

 

ND filters are great if you are wanting to reduce the amount of overall light, but graduated ND filters are good for doing difficult exposures -- e.g. cloudy days, where you want the clouds to be properly exposed instead of washing out. Circular graduated ND filters are okay, but don't allow for compensation or movement; the Cokin filters allow movement in all directions. I've used them for years and they are relatively cheap.

52mm is the filter size for all the Nikon prime lenses that I've owned, including older non-AF telephoto. When you get into the zoom and macro lenses, they vary; my 60mm Micro-Nikkor is 62mm, my 70-300mm VR is 67mm, and I think the 24-120mm VR that I sold was 72mm.

 

If I had anticipated all that variation, I might have bought a set of everything in 72mm and then bought adapter rings for each lens.

 

I think the following may have come up in discussion before, but I don't have time to check, so ...

 

If you don't yet have a polarizing filter you'll probably end up wanting one after you try someone else's. They don't make much difference on dull, overcast days when the lighting is flat, but on sunny days they can greatly increase color saturation in foliage, on shiny surfaces like cars, and make clouds stand out and the sky a deeper blue. With autofocus lenses you need a circular polarizer.

 

There are several manufacturers. I've tried a Hoya, and found that it imparted a warm cast to my photos. Some folks may like that, but I don't. I bought the Nikon filter and think it's much more neutral. A polarizer can also work as a neutral-density filter; it has a filter factor of around 3, plus or minus, depending on the filter position and the scene. Sometimes it can reduce the appearance of atmospheric haze, too. The Nikon 52mm circular polarizing filter is pricey (~$70) compared with others that are roughly half that, but to me the difference is worth it.

You should look into the Cokin Creative Filter system for ND and other graduated filters:

http://www.cokin.fr/ico1-p1.html

 

ND filters are great if you are wanting to reduce the amount of overall light, but graduated ND filters are good for doing difficult exposures -- e.g. cloudy days, where you want the clouds to be properly exposed instead of washing out. Circular graduated ND filters are okay, but don't allow for compensation or movement; the Cokin filters allow movement in all directions. I've used them for years and they are relatively cheap.

 

I have a friend who has those graduated filters and they are so cool. Once I learn a little more about what they can do, I'll consider buying them.

Here's one of his photos taken with the filters.  They do wonders for the sky.

You don't really need graduated ND filters with digital.  If you shoot RAW you can just open a bright and dark version of the same image in photoshop and drop in the dark sky. 

 

Polarizers have had a bad repuatation because most people only get the cheap ones.  I do have the dreadfully expensive 77mm Nikon circular polarizer and consider it worth it.  It's around $170 but it gets used all the time.  It also by chance fits on one of my 4x5 lenses.

 

 

 

 

Well, my graduated ND filters come from when I was shooting my Nikon N80 and Canon AE-1 -- both film cameras. Yeah, just by doing a double exposure and compensating for the variations, or by doing a selective merge (I forget what free open-source tool I use for Lightroom), I can get the same results.

Can anyone shed some light on how to minimize the "sunburst" effect of the lights.  should I be using a certain filter?  am I using an incorrect aperture?

 

 

 

Were you going for depth of field by using a small aperture? You may be facing a trade-off between depth of field and minimum starburst effect.

 

Experiment with different aperture settings. If I remember correctly, my experience has been that smaller apertures (higher numbers) create more starburst.

 

Actually, I think that's an interesting photo. Some photographers work to get starburst effects, and even buy filters to create it. Somewhere I discovered by accident that a piece of window screen close to the lens will create a good starburst.

I took that at 44 seconds f/36.  I do like the starburst effect, just not always.  I will definitely have to try the trick with the window screen.

^ I have noticed that at smaller apertures, it's easier to get the starburst effect. I have some night shots I took a while back that have smaller apertures (around f/16) and longer shutters to achieve motion blur. I haven't been out at night lately to shoot but the next time I do, I'll try using a larger aperture to see what happens. Did you have any filters on the lens when you shot that?

 

Oh btw, I really like the photo.

^Thanks.  No filter on the lens although I recently got a UV filter (I'm told alot of people just leave it on their lens at all times and it protects the lens as well).

 

 

 

Hi Dear Admin and all friends .. I am Karl . While I was browsing the net I saw this forum and thought to join.

 

I am looking improve my knowledge about web design and other related things ..

 

Hope to know you all in the forum .. :)

 

Welcome, Karl.

anyone have a good website for ordering 11x14 prints at a good price?

http://imagekind.com/

 

I think high end glossy paper goes for $15 at that size.  That may be including the commission I charge on my prints, though.  Might be cheaper for your own that you're not selling.

anyone have a good website for ordering 11x14 prints at a good price?

 

Since you're in Cleveland, I'd recommend Camera City in the Caxton Building on Huron for larger prints. I usually walk in and drop off a disc. http://cameracityaudio.com/

anyone have a good website for ordering 11x14 prints at a good price?

 

Since you're in Cleveland, I'd recommend Camera City in the Caxton Building on Huron for larger prints. I usually walk in and drop off a disc. http://cameracityaudio.com/

 

Someone recommended this site to me.  It seems to have decent prices.

 

http://www.myphotopipe.com/platformChoice.php

 

Next question - Apparently I need to crop my photos when I upload them for printing.  The problem is, I lose important parts of the pic.  Can I someone resize them in Photoshop?  Or do I need to be taking wider pictures to allow for crop?

"Apparently I need to crop my photos when I upload them for printing."

 

I'd need to see the exact context you're referencing from the site. What I usually do right off the bat is crop the image into the size of print I want, and then make edits and tweaks.

Well, when I upload this picture to that website and choose 11x14, it automatically gives me a box to move over the image to crop it, as in my camera takes pics in a different size than whatever is required for 11x14 pics.  I edited the pic I took in photoshop prior to uploading it, but I didn't do anything to the size.  The problem is, I lose the first columns if I were to crop it the way the website wants me to.

 

All of the standard print sizes are left over from the glass plate negative era, so 100 years ago.  Before enlargers they used to just make contact prints by laying glass plates onto the paper and exposing them to the sun or an artificial light source. 

 

All of those glass plates tended to be closer to a square in size because of the smaller image circles of early lenses, so that's how we ended up with 5x7's, 8x10's, and 11x14's.  There were even 16x20's and 20x24's.  35mm is wider than the rest because it evolved from 35mm movie film and so didn't have the image circle issue. 

 

Cory, if the printer only offers the old standard sizes that jmecklenborg cited (for example, 11x14), size your image so that the wide dimension will be 14 inches. The height of the image will come out to about 9 3/8, leaving about 3/4 inch of white space at the top and bottom. You can either trim that off, or mat over it.

 

Most ready-made framing and matting materials still conform to the old glass-plate ratios, as do some medium-format film cameras and most large-format cameras, but most 35mm cameras and DSLRs have aspect ratios of 3:2. If you want to keep the full frame, it's no crime; there won't be mobs of photographers and printers at your door with torches and pitchforks.

 

If you choose to stick with the old standard aspect ratios of 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, etc., then you just need to keep that in mind and allow for crop when you're composing an image in your viewfinder.

 

BTW: pretty striking image.

I messed with it for a second in photoshop.  You can fix the vertical perspective slightly and that will give an image that will look better on a wall.  To me it seems that with architectural images they either need to be leveled perfectly with a bubble level (only takes a second) or they need to be pitched somewhat dramatically.  The only way to really eliminate barrel distortion is to use a large format or rangefinder medium format camera, which almost nobody does.  A big reason why "old photographs" look so good is because they don't have barrel distortion.

 

I think you should print this one full-frame.  The aspect ratio issue is the bane of photography, kind of like railroad gauges, and is the source of endless online folderol. 

 

If you do a lot of this kind of photography, a bubble level and a tape measure are a lot more important tools than fancy, expensive lenses.  On a shot like this you can measure between the pillars to center the camera perfectly and then adjust it on the tripod to make the film plane exactly parallel to the "horizon".

 

Just lay a bubble level from the hardware store across the top of the camera. If it's one of those levels that looks like a tootsie roll, you need to level it forward/backward as well as left/right.     

 

If you do this enough you'll be surprised by how many crooked buildings and rooms there are out there, and to what degree we perceive an attractive interior to be attractive largely because it's walls are ceiling are square. 

 

 

Thanks guys - some good things to think about.  I am looking to get a bunch of pictures on the walls in my house and in general, for now, I probably don't want to print full frame due to added cost of printing non standard sizes and the need for custom matting.  That being said, maybe with this one, I will find a printer who can do the full frame.

 

What do you guys do?  Do you typically crop your pics to one of the standard aspect ratios or do you print full frame?

Well the one thing to keep in mind is that if you're doing a vertical they rarely look as good full-frame as they would in an 8x10 or 11x14 frame. 

 

Also it's pretty tough to find good standard-size frames.  Most people are shocked by the prices of even these frames.  If you enter something in a contest, definitely get it custom framed. 

Gotcha - personally my preference is to print in standard sizes due to the cost.  Joann Fabrics seems to sell its frames for 50% off practically every other week.  These are not the best quality frames, but when you are trying to put a lot of pics on your walls (like me) it is cost prohibitive to custom frame them all. 

 

Is it possible to adjust my camera so it takes the pictures in more of the standard sizes as opposed to full frame? (or is this frowned upon by the pros?)

Maybe some cameras do that, I don't know.  Nobody particularly cares or knows if you crop a digital image.  The only way to know is to see the original file.  With film, you could print so that the frame lines actually showed up, letting everyone know how macho you are for having composed a photograph perfectly. 

^Agreed.

 

Uh-oh! Can't stop!<  :yap: >

 

I'm old-school about some things. If I prepare something for a show, most likely it will be an 11x14 print with a 16x20 white mat and narrow black frame, preferably wood. I like the arctic white mat with a black core; it makes a narrow black border when bevel-cut.

 

I've taken to using clear acrylic instead of glass; even "picture glass" has a greenish tint to it, and that tends to mute colors and flatten contrast in some prints. I think the difference is most noticeable in crisp black-and-white prints. Acrylic is really clear, and it has a couple of other features that I like; it's much lighter in weight than glass is, and it provides better UV protection for the print. On the down side, it's more expensive, more easily scratched, and can be damaged by chemical glass cleaners.

 

If I sell prints at an art festival, I don't mat or frame them; the buyer usually has his/her own preferences and favorite framing shop. I print 11x14 or 11-inch full-frame centered on 13x19 paper and leave them untrimmed. I back them with cardboard and enclose them in crystal-clear bags and then display some on wire-grid panels and use plastic milk crates as bins for the rest. People can go through the bins to their hearts' content without damaging the prints or degrading the display quality. The bags are available for all the old standard print sizes and for most current inkjet photo paper sizes. They have reclosable peel-and-seal closures and are, as the name implies, crystal clear.

 

< / :yap: >

I have been seeing people use aluminum frames with a slight copper tint which can look really good.  Black frames can reduce the ability of an image to "pop" though. 

 

You can't tell from this digital image but this photo is framed with a slightly blue/pewter wood that hints at the blue in the bridge cables and new building.  This works well when you have a stand-alone photo, but if you have a series, it's probably better to pick a more generic color:

 

Another advantage of shooting with a large format is that if you happen to take a shot that's not level, it is more easily corrected in photoshop since there is no barrel distortion.  A crooked camera + barrel distortion is a pretty much unfixable situation. 

 

Also, film still has the advantage of choosing either a high contrast or low contrast film.  With digital you're stuck with the characteristics of digital.  The image above was taken on a bright day with low-contrast portrait film, Fuji 160s. Conversely you can use high contrast Provia reversal film on a gray day. 

I shoot digital and unless it's only going to be displayed online, I always crop to a traditional size.  Here's an example, these were all cropped to 8x10 for printing: http://zfein.com/photography/exhibit/

 

I've slowly gotten used to the fact that I'm going to have to lose an inch on either side of the long side of the photo, and shoot accordingly.  As for frames, Micheal's seems to have a sale every other week as well.  I've gotten simple black wood 11x14 frames with white matting to 8x10 for $5, and 14x18 fames matted to 11x14 for $10. 

I shoot digital and unless it's only going to be displayed online, I always crop to a traditional size.  Here's an example, these were all cropped to 8x10 for printing: http://zfein.com/photography/exhibit/

 

I've slowly gotten used to the fact that I'm going to have to lose an inch on either side of the long side of the photo, and shoot accordingly.  As for frames, Micheal's seems to have a sale every other week as well.  I've gotten simple black wood 11x14 frames with white matting to 8x10 for $5, and 14x18 fames matted to 11x14 for $10. 

 

Stunning pics Ram - I like those a lot.  I'm not quite up to that level with my urban exploring yet.

This is for all of the Aperture 3 users experiencing the larger than normal watermark.

Versions this problem affects:

3.0, 3.1, 3.2

 

*The problem:

If you are using the new release, you probably have noticed how the application scales up the watermark to about 1/3 of the photo, no matter how big the file is.

This is a known problem throughout the community, and Apple doesn't seem to get the memo.

 

 

 

*The solution:

There is a workaround for this. Since Aperture wants the watermark file to be in .psd format, there's a simple and quick fix to this scaling problem. In Photoshop, edit your watermark, but keep the CANVAS the original size. Resize the text or image layer smaller and you may have to do it a few times to get it right. Go into Aperture and chose the new file and export a test photo to view how large the watermark will be. Once you're happy with the size, save the new watermark. Just remember, DON'T change the canvas size. Leave it alone. Just change the visible layer and it should work.

 

I'm not sure how many Aperture users are on this forum, but if you do have problems, follow these directions and it should work.

 

Update: This problem has been resolved.  I'm going to keep this up here though just in case.

So I'm thinking I want to get some nighttime sky shots, maybe experiment with 5 min+ exposures and try and get some star trails.  Eventually, I am planning a camping trip out in the middle of nowhere.  However, I would like to try it out first without an overnight trip.  I realize I need to get outside of Cleveland a little bit to do this.  Does anyone know any good spots no farther than 30-45 mins outside of Cleveland that I can get some good sky shots?

I haven't heard much about this in the last year, but if it is open through the park district, I think it would be an ideal area:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2009/01/20/sci_nightsky_geauga.ART_ART_01-20-09_B4_FSCHQ09.html

Thanks for the tip.  I did some research and called the parks dept.  Phase I is complete and they are starting construction on Phase II 5/1.  It's not accessible right now but the person I talked to gave me a good tip on another park out there.

Not really photography, but it's related to the software.  Any web designers on this board use Adobe Fireworks rather than Photoshop to do layouts and graphics for their pages?  I'm just curious.  I love the simplicity of it.

^I'd like something simpler. I make simple pages that have generally simple image creation/manipulation needs. Photoshop has a lot of features I don't use. Been using Paint Shop for a long time.

What I mean was simpler than Photoshop.

Can anyone tell me why there is this purplish color in the corners?

 

 

Looks like vignetting, like something impinged on the corners of the lens field of view. The most common culprit in those cases is a filter (or stack of filters, like polarizer and UV). It's something you need to watch out for with wide lenses or zoom lenses at their wider settings. No wider than my 28mm f/2.8 Nikkor is, if I try to stick on a circular polarizer without first removing my UV filter, I'll see it.

 

There's an adjustment for it in Photoshop (Filter > Distort > Lens Correction) but it has its limitations. If you can't get away from that particular lens or combination of lens and filter(s), you may be able to back off a little and include a larger field, so you can crop off the bad corners.

I did have a UV filter on the lens, so maybe that caused it.  It was worse the longer the shot that I took.  I guess next time, I will have to try removing the filter.

hey u photodeveloper nerds -- can we get some more waaay over the top hdr on uo please?  :clap:

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonyshi/3660760107/#in/pool-65349892@N00