On the link between gallery and photography

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I don't think it's contentious. But I have seen it pointed out toothersas though they weren't "worthy" since they didn't have photosposted.

I too have looked at at others gallery to check if they walked thewalk.Just never thought of treating it as some sort of challenge.Seems to methat doing so would prove harmful to the community at RFF.

 

[VinceC]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. For the most part I post photos in the middle of threads, usually to give some example of how one of my lenses behaves. For a long time, the only images in my gallery were from a weekend lens test.

On the other hand, I sometimes can get quite empassioned (ie., overbearing) when I'm discussing photojournalism and the philosophy of photography. So I thought it would be useful to put a few portfolio images into my gallery ... in part to also show fabulous Nikkor lenses under real-world conditions.

 

[FrankS]

For my part, I'm not setting the posting pictures in the gallery as a challenge to put up or shut up. Not at all. There are many reasons why someone wouldn't or couldn't.

Done. Peace out.

 

[bmattock]

I just worry about the day when it gets so crowded here that there are limits placed on how much one can upload.

I actually would have been just as happy if there had never been a gallery on RFF. In my humble opinion, it brings out the 'look at me' kiddies and tends to drag everything else down.

I used to belong to this thing called photosig.com. Nice place, at first it was free and the idea was that we'd all upload our 'problem shots' and ask others to diagnose and critique them. We'd do the same for them, of course. And it was nice at first. And the owners started charging - a reasonable $25 per year, which I gladly paid.

But you got 'points' for the critiques you got - and gave - and the articles you wrote - and etc. And soon the kiddies started posting photos designed to razzle the senses, they'd spam people to rate them high - and rate you high in return - and so on. Ugly. I used to say "GIVE ME THREE THUMBS DOWN - JUST GIVE ME AN HONEST APPRAISAL" and when it got too hard to even get that, I quit. It wasn't about the images, it was about the points. It wasn't uploading your problem shots for a 'many eyes' approach to diagnosis, it was uploading your very best shots and try to wow the crowd with how great you are. Oh, and don't forget the obligatory boobies and puppies - real crowd pleasers.

Hey, I still get emails from time to time - "Missing you on PhotoSig." Well, I'm not missing them.

Take the gallery away, I'm cool with that. Take the classified ads, too (yes, I know, I'm in the distinct minority here, I understand and don't want to fight that battle again). Just talk and lots of it, and that's why I come here. The poseurs quickly ID themselves.

Nothing against the photos in the gallery - and I've appreciated some of the comments I've gotten on mine, too. I've been bowled over by the incredible quality of a few I've seen here as well. But if the gallery vanished tomorrow, I'd still come here.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

For my part, I'm not setting the posting pictures in the gallery as a challenge to put up or shut up. Not at all. There are many reasons why someone wouldn't or couldn't.

Done. Peace out.

Frank, when I said "put up or shut up" I was referring to old car talk. In the bad old days, bench racers could talk a tough race, but had no wheels, for some reason. The term then was "put up or shut up," as in let's see the car, or stop talking about how fast it is.

But we're not competing with each other, photography isn't street racing. I look in the gallery, and it is pretty clear that everyone who comments, does so in a positive manner. I don't see any "Your photo sucks, see how great mine are instead."

My only point was that although I understand your desire to see a poster's images, the thought never really occurred to me, because unlike racing, a person can know a lot about photography and still not be that good at it. Or their photos can be technically excellent and total dross just the same. Doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. That's just my opinion, I mean no harm.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[FrankS]

No harm, no foul, Bill. 🙂

 

[ch1]

I'm such a computer doofus, coming to all of this late in life, that MOST of the time I am unable to post an image to My Gallery. The only way I can figure out how to send one anywhere is to suck it up into Photoshop and then email it to someone because PS automatically does some sort of shrink-to-fit routine. But I have no idea how to email it to my gallery.

Lends new meaning to my 'learning curve.' More like a flat line.

Ted,

It's only a mystery until you solve it. Given you are shooting in Bisbee area - you are living in picture heaven (heck, I have a place in Tucson and come down to B-bee to do shooting!).

Just take it into PS and go to "image size". Once there, look for which is the longest side (i.e. horizontal or vertical) and enter 800. That will automatically size the smaller side.

Then save the resulting image as a JPEG (usually I go to a different folder so as to "preserve" my original image).

Once you do that it should be "rightly" sized for uploading to the Gallery.

Get to that point and then we can discuss the next steps if you want....

Unfortunately, I cannot get back out to Tucson until Memorial Day weekend - but if you'd like to do a "shoot" and/or just do an upload together - let me know.

My feeling is that the Gallery is a way for us to share our pics with each other....let's use it!

 

[dcsang]

Ya.. I agree.. I'd still show up too.

I know of PhotoSig.. never belonged to it - I never understood the concept of that; the whole "rating" thing. I could only imagine what it would have been like for some of the great masters back in the renaissance if they had to submit their paintings for critique by the masses 🙂 It would have been funny.. but I look at photos like any other.. ugh.. I hate this word.. "art"... some people like certain things.... while others are spurned by the same image.

It's personal preference imho.

I don't think anyone's image is any more or less in the eyes of the person who enjoys it at that particular point in time. That's not to say that one can't improve their images - and that's something that the gallery or any web storage site could provide. The ability to look back and say "whoa.. I really have grown in terms of what I used to shoot".. or, conversely, "man... I was better back then.. I have to get back to that frame of mind/time".

For me, the Gallery is mainly for browsing and inspiration. I rarely comment unless I am really moved by an image; that's the way I've always been, whether it's here or some other photo site - that's not to say that the images are not worthy or "good" per se, that's just the way I am 😀

Dave

 

[fraley]

This is the only place I post my pictures. I really look forward to putting them up here. In fact I shy away from buying any used equipment that isn't a rangefinder, because I want to post the results here. I also find I spend an equal amount of time reading threads, looking at the for-sale items, and viewing the gallery.

 

[tedwhite]

Thanks, George. I'll fiddle with it and get back to you. Many thanks.

 

[ch1]

Thanks, George. I'll fiddle with it and get back to you. Many thanks.

Hey, no problemo.

If worse comes to worse, we could hang out at that bar where the Gringos drink Corona and the Mexicans drink Bud Lite! 😀

After half a dozen or so, PS will seem like "Duck Soup"!

 

[VinceC]

Even if you don't own PhotoShop, the photo editor that comes with newer versions of MicroSoft Windows can resize and save as a jpeg. Just save a copy of the original (so you don't remove irretrievable information) then resize so that the longest side is about 700 pixels.

 

[ch1]

Even if you don't own PhotoShop, the photo editor that comes with newer versions of MicroSoft Windows can resize and save as a jpeg. Just save a copy of the original (so you don't remove irretrievable information) then resize so that the longest side is about 700 pixels.

Yes, thanks Vince, that is an even easier way to get a pic up to the Gallery.

I should have thought of that as the best "entryway". I'm actually a PS "baby" myself but do like to "tweak" contrast etc. to some degree.

BTW, I "sneak" up to 800 pixels (someone here first told me 750) but probably doesn't matter much so long as the file size stays under 300kb 😉

 

[jan normandale]

@ Bill, I came to RFF because of the galleries. Ended up in the threads and now have gone back to the galleries. I like to see others work and images from other places than N America. It's a big world and there are a lot of interesting photographers with different takes on the 'human condition' I get stimulation from the differences.

I'm always amazed to see the 4-5 images a day posters. Some members have incredibly high numbers others less than 100.

I'm beginning to delete images. I want to run around 100 images, 200 and its time to cull. I upload primarily as reciprocity to the other members who also make the effort to keep the gallery vital and alive so my uploads are my contribution to that aspect of RFF.

Jan

 

[RayPA]

I'm always a little disappointed when someone doesn't have a gallery link or blog link in their signature (or if their gallery is empty); it seems odd, especially if they're expounding and advocating for a particular developer, film or lens, or if they're making an interesting point, or a making a fool of themselves, or if they're a new(er) member.

It's a great way to get to know someone on a different level, see their influences, preferences, etc. It shows that their part of the "party" (celebatory, not political), putting-up. When they don't have a gallery they're like the person who comes to a costume party, without a costume. It's a letdown, but otherwise, it's really no big deal. 😉 They're still at the party, partying.



🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I never upload images but I like to look at other people's work there.

 

[Andy K]

I like to browse the galleries, but I prefer the albums which have ten or less photographs in them. Then I can really study them. When I open a gallery and it has hundreds of images I move on because I don't have the time to browse through that much from a single poster and there are many others whose work I would like to see.
As for myself I upload infrequently, mainly because i usually carry an Olympus OM-1 as my everyday camera (because, excepting the Zorki, my rangefinders are all fixed lens), so I do not often have work to show from my four rangefinder cameras. (Zorki 4K, Voigtlander Vito CLR, Canonet QL28 and Canonet QL17 GIII)

Ps. If anyone is looking for critique of their work try photocritique.net. It doesn't seem to be related to a scoring system.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I like the Expressions service for their deep knowledge of photography and their technical skills on the web.


Their customer care is second to none: we had server downtime on New Years overnight and they sent everybody their entire monthly January payment back.

You can also point your own domain name there.

 

[taffer]

Just a day ago, someone mentioned that if a person never posts images to the gallery here, they probably don't do much actual photography. An interesting proposition.

By interesting coincidence, as I got home today, I noted three things.

1) A check in the mail from Wayne County Arts Council for a print I sold at a recent exhibition. Not much money, but money is money.

2) Page 5, Wilson Daily Times - a photo I took of a recent charity event. No money, but I got the tearline, so that's good recognition for my budding photography business.

3) As I neared home, there was a police officer directing traffic around a traffic accident. Since it was only a block from my house, when I got home, I grabbed my camera, walked past the police line (they know me by now) and took a few shots of some crushed cars. The paper might and might not buy them - probably not, I missed most of the 'action' and only got some smashed cars. But it was something.

And of course, tomorrow, Cap'n Slack and I (and our families) are going to Raleigh to attend a B&W photography exhibit.

On the 11th, I have a paying gig for the city of Wilson coming up. It will be my first time hiring another photographer to back me up. Last month, I had several credited photos in the Goldsboro Argus for a charity fund-raiser I shot.

And I have a message on my phone - the lady who runs the non-profit that I shot last weekend saw her photos in the paper and wants to get with me to order some bigger prints, etc.

In between this, I am experimenting with Kodak Tri-X pushed with Diafine and I spent last weekend playing with a Hoya 72 Infrared filter on my Pentax DSLR (it is sensitive in the IR range, lucky me) doing digital IR - a first for me.

And I still have a day job, writing software.

I currently have no photos in the gallery, and I don't think I've ever had more than 8 or so at any one time. I sometimes check out the gallery, but not often. I'm a lot more interested in the conversation. Well except for that guy who keeps posting the 'film is dead' threads.

How about you guys? Gallery users or no? Does having a gallery affect your photographic output one way or another?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Glad to read this Bill ! From this and previous posts of yours it seems as if you now you have the wheel turning, and the more work you do the more offers and calls for more work you get, congrats ! 🙂

I'm guilty of having somewhat loosened my relationship with the gallery in all respects (browsing, commenting and uploading), and truth is I have no logical neither emotional reason for it. 😕

Oscar

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Honestly, I quit posting pictures in the gallery when the jpeg compression went higher and size limitations went on. I take mostly "family snaps", but with many different cameras and lenses. When someone asks a question about cameras/lenses, i could post the link. The file attachments allow more detail than the gallery, and I am good at finding old threads and attachments via the search engine so that I do not constantly repost the same example.

Do I shoot: about 2 rolls per week on average. I do not scan much, except for examples of different cameras/lenses. Will probably scan shots with the Millenium Nikkor and 1950's Nokton soon.