BW Pics
Dudley Hanks
composition...
Now, the backgrounds need attention.
Homework:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework-small.jpg (quick
load)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.cr2 (original RAW)
Unplugged:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged-small.jpg (quick
load)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.cr2 (original RAW)
Portrait of a guide dog:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich-small.jpg (quick load)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.cr2 (original RAW)
As always, comments / critiques are both welcome and appreciated...
Take Care,
Dudley
George Kerby
On 3/6/09 9:00 AM, in article 2Uasl.15549$Db2.108@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
Hello Dudley!
All I get when I click on any of your buttons is:
"PAGE NOT FOUND
We cannot locate the page you're looking for. Please check the address and
make sure all letters are lowercased with no spaces. You may also move to a
different page by using the links in the menu bar above."
Thought you might want to know...
Dudley Hanks
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5D6A8E0.23947%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be down.
I'll check to see what is happening.
Take Care,
Dudley
David J Taylor
[]
> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
dog.jpg
and
Dog.jpg
are two different files.
Same for directories.
Cheers,
David
John McWilliams
Also, when I take the URL back to just:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access
is denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not,
but it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
--
John McWilliams
Dudley Hanks
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gorkb3$s7b$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
I think it's fixed, now.
I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I put
in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for a few
minutes in order to fix that problem.
The links seem to be working again.
Take Care,
Dudley
John McWilliams
ah, bingo! It is working. I have to run, but this one,
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg
- the girl studying is out of focus, but it's a nice effect. The focus
seems to be on a text book in the foreground.
--
John McWilliams
Dudley Hanks
Thanks, John, appreciate that bit of info. Ensuring focus is where I want
it could be my next big problem to figure out.
Take Care,
Dudley
Sharon
I don't post much to this group, but I always appreciate your photographic
work. I like all three pictures. Good composition. Although the girl is
out of focus, the book is in focus, which makes it the object of the
thoughts she appears to be absorbed with. Unplugged is a nice candid shot.
My only problem with this picture is the lamp in the background being a
little over exposed. Nice, sharp shot of the dog too.
Sharon
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gorlg3$h3t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Dudley Hanks
"Sharon" <sharon_...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:gorq4u$bo7$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Dudley,
>
> I don't post much to this group, but I always appreciate your photographic
> work. I like all three pictures. Good composition. Although the girl is
> out of focus, the book is in focus, which makes it the object of the
> thoughts she appears to be absorbed with. Unplugged is a nice candid
> shot. My only problem with this picture is the lamp in the background
> being a little over exposed. Nice, sharp shot of the dog too.
>
> Sharon
Thanks, Sharon, appreciate your comments.
In the unplugged shot, I was using the lamp to get enough contrast to locate
the subject's outline against. I probably should have gone with a lower ISO
setting to dial that lamp down a bit in the actual image.
Thanks for pointing that out for me.
Take Care,
Dudley
George Kerby
On 3/6/09 10:40 AM, in article Glcsl.15556$Db2.10991@edtnps83, "Dudley
Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
Works for me now.
I'm impressed by your very shallow depth-of-field on your dog's portrait.
"The eyes have it", as they say. I am impressed by all of his "metals", LOL!
George Kerby
On 3/6/09 11:14 AM, in article 9Scsl.15560$Db2.5421@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
You certainly hit it on your Guide Dog.
Dudley Hanks
It's funny how things work out...
In the homework shot, I actually wanted it the other way around, with the
books out of focus. The intention was to get a kind of daydream feel: the
texts being there but not what is being "focused" on.
With Mich, I thought I might have trouble with the focus, since fur can
throw off autofocusing systems.
But, hey, I'll take what I can get...
Regarding Mich, I can make out a bit of the catchlight in his eye, so I'm
wondering if that worked out. My fear is that, if I can notice it, it might
be that his eye is looking a bit glassy to everybody else?
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Distinguished Service" medals, each and every one... :)
Actually, they serve a purpose. In addition to his vaccination tags, dog
license tag, and GDB identification tag, I add another tag or two just to
make sure things jingle nicely as he walks around. That way, when he's
wandering around the house, I can keep track of where he is and not trip
over him. Also, it makes it less likely we will surprise people as we
overtake them on the sidewalks.
Take Care,
Dudley
Allen
boggles the mind. Earlier this week I saw a story on a US news program
about a service dog that detects the slightest trace of peanuts--and all
this has grown out of the original program to train them to serve the
visually impaired. I'm a cat person myself (they eat less and don't
crush me when they jump up on my lap) but I have a great respect for
what dogs can be trained to do--as opposed to cats, who don't give a
damn about what _you_ want them to do.
Allen
Dudley Hanks
"Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1ZKdnThVG-X-GyzU...@giganews.com...
I like 'em both...
When my wife and I got married, I had a seal point Siamese cat named Brandy.
She was a crazy cat that quite literally "climbed the walls."
When our first child came along, Brandy wasn't impressed, but she tolerated
my son. But, when the second guy was born, Brandy lost it, completely.
She pissed on the kids' clothes, in the crib, and in their shoes --
wouldn't go anywhere near either.
We tried everything we could to get her to mellow a bit, but nothing worked.
Finally, we had to take her to a shelter. I'm hoping somebody (without
kids) adopted her because she was a lot of fun (prior to children).
Take Care,
Dudley
George Kerby
On 3/6/09 1:49 PM, in article c7fsl.15592$Db2.3380@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
> Regarding Mich, I can make out a bit of the catchlight in his eye, so I'm
> wondering if that worked out. My fear is that, if I can notice it, it might
> be that his eye is looking a bit glassy to everybody else?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
In both the bw and the color RAW, I do not find it excessive, rather more
dramatic. His left eye has just enough IMHO. But, as the say, mileage may
vary.
Get Real
Doesn't matter. They're just typical "I have a fancy camera" snapshots
taken by anyone, 4 years old to 80 years old, hoping that their camera's
automatic point-and-shoot features will turn them into a real photographer
one day. The world is crawling wall-to-wall with people like that. B&W
isn't going to automatically turn an ordinary snapshot into a work of art
either. Maybe you should have bought a camera with face and smile detection
too so it will know better where to focus for you.
About the only thing you've managed to do is show everyone that the
automatic features of your make and model of camera are fairly useless and
should never be depended upon. So much for the DSLR's "advanced"
auto-focusing being the panacea that everyone claims.
Chimpanzees were launched into space in the distant past, under the control
of a fully automated launch and retrieval system. That doesn't mean that
the chimp will ever steer any vehicle to any intentional destination on
their own.
Next we'll all be applauding the tone-deaf person trying to sing opera who
might someday happen to hit one correct note by pure accident. Or the
sight-challenged person trying to drive a car in the Indy 500. Either way
it's just an accident in the making and it only makes all the spectators
feel uncomfortable and embarrassed for everyone involved. Do everyone a
favor and save us all from the "blind-photographer" act. Maybe you can find
a "special-needs" photographer's forum where you can rate your photos
against others with similar abilities. Where everyone gets a gold-medal
just for trying.
Have fun with your toys but don't expect to win "World's Greatest Dancer"
with both legs cut off. Nor should you hope to get applause from those who
know how to treat everyone equally.
Get Real
John McWilliams
Seventh grade put downs.
You are a mean spirited little person.
--
lsmft
Dudley Hanks
"Get Real" <g...@spambegone.org> wrote in message
news:4523r45fjinat1g80...@4ax.com...
I wasn't aware that a sight limitation disqualifies me from posting in this
group?
Perhaps you only post for praise; I post for feedback, i.e. information
that can help me improve what I'm doing.
In the music world, there isn't a lot of criticism about technological
features that help talented, professional, musicians do things they couldn't
normally do without the assistance of megabuck extensions to the musician's
talent. Why should a disabled photographer not be entitled to similar
assistive devices?
I've dealt with this type of criticism for many years. When I was taking
educational upgrading, someone was pissed off because I got time-and-a-half
to write exams while able-bodied students had to do their best within the
regular time constraints. The fact that it took me longer to read the test,
because of a physical limitation as opposed to a mental limitation, didn't
seem to matter.
Who is right? I can't say. I simply believe that we all deserve a chance
to do the best we can with what we have.
The problem with an elitist mentality, such as you are typifying, is that it
comes back to bite the elitists, themselves, in the ass. long after
Hitler's elite troops had been demolished, women, old men, disabled soldiers
and young children were the ones to pick up the pieces and put Germany back
in order. And, of course, let's not forget about what happened to the
British elitists who discounted the rag tag American militias...
For my part, I love technology; it is making it possible for me to keep on
doing what I love. If my work makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry you can't
share in my excitement, but I won't put down my camera simply to help you
feel better about the world as you see it.
BTW, since you seem to have missed it, the BW is not an attempt to turn
plain pics into artistic works; it's simply the tool I am currently using
to compose my pics. Putting the camera in BW mode increases the contrast of
the LCD display. Turning up the brightness then enhances that increased
contrast so that, in certain situations, I can compose an image the way I
want it to appear. Not much difference between my using that tool and a
hearing impaired musician using a hearing aid. In both cases some talent is
required for a successful project. If the musician isn't completely tone
deaf, a hearing aid can make it possible for the artist to maximize his /
her talent. In my case, as long as I have a certain talent for composition
and artistic flair, it will show through in the final images -- perhaps not
so much at first, but in time...
The autofocus is probably the one technological development I use that
actually makes my life more difficult than it has to be, at least some of
the time. I can truthfully say that I often long for an old-time, manual
focus lens with a DOF scale imprinted on it. If I had such a lens at my
disposal (that would work with the autoexposure circuitry of my camera), I
would slap it on in an instant and crazy glue the lens in a hyperfocal
position. That would speed up my process in about 90% of the shots I take.
One of the nice things about Usenet, at least from my point of view, is that
I get a chance to address people with your viewpoint in a fairly civilized
manner. Given my physical size, I doubt you would say much if we were to
meet face to face.
With sufficient dialogue, all things can be worked out in the end.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message news:...
An afterthought:
I think most knowledgeable photographers who have been following my work
will have noticed something in the last pics I've posted: a limited amount
of control is exhibited.
In the homework picture, the image was preplanned in such a way to maximize
the effect of DOF. I situated the subject and her props in such a way that
DOF would establish a relationship between the girl and the books. I had
originally wanted the books out of focus in order to establish a daydreaming
type setting, with the books being there but not focused on. The result,
obviously, was the opposite, with the books being in focus. Hence, the
relationship was somewhat different than I had planned, but it was
nonetheless established on the elements I had predicated. It's only a small
technical challenge to get the autofocus system under better control.
In the case of Mich's portrait, I wanted to test out portrait style
lighting. And, indeed, that picture was by in large a success. The light
came in high from one side, yielding a picture with the feel of a
traditional portrait, despite the canine subject. The eyes were even the
center of focus, complete with sparkle.
Now, I still have a couple of more flashes to bring out of retirement, along
with an umbrella or two, and some old light stands. Given a better
background and a human subject, what do you think my portraits will look
like? (Get ready to pick your jaw off the floor.)
Re: unplugged, I was simply trying to get the subject in the area I wanted
it. In my earlier, concert shooting days, I often shot guitarists in a
similar position with either another guitarist, or the keyboardist, or the
drummer faded high on the right side, with the neck of the near subject's
guitar pointing in the general direction of the secondary subject.
Obviously, I didn't have access to a complete band, but I use my ability to
preconceptualize a scene and shot the pic with the subject roughly where he
would need to be to get the idea I was after.
Soon, I will be shooting a band, live, and you will see a very similar look
and feel in those pics.
In each of the situations, I did not get everything I wantede, but I got
part of it (ever heard of R&D). And, in the future, I WILL improve upon
these results.
Now, if your average snap shooter with a fancy camera puts this much thought
into his or her pics, then that is what I am, and I will be quite happy with
the fruit of my labour. If my work is indicative of a somewhat deeper level
of talent, which I hope it is, then I expect your rants will necessarily
adopt even more invective slurs and degratory statements in the future.
Just keep in mind your words betray more about yourself than they highlight
about me.
Take Care,
Dudley
Paul Furman
>
> An afterthought:
>
> I think most knowledgeable photographers who have been following my work
> will have noticed something in the last pics I've posted: a limited amount
> of control is exhibited.
Yep! These came out well. Huge improvement.
> In the homework picture, the image was preplanned in such a way to maximize
> the effect of DOF. I situated the subject and her props in such a way that
> DOF would establish a relationship between the girl and the books. I had
> originally wanted the books out of focus in order to establish a daydreaming
> type setting, with the books being there but not focused on. The result,
> obviously, was the opposite, with the books being in focus. Hence, the
> relationship was somewhat different than I had planned, but it was
> nonetheless established on the elements I had predicated. It's only a small
> technical challenge to get the autofocus system under better control.
This is perfect for a day dreaming look.
AF will normally try to lock onto the closest element assuming it's a
face in front of a less important background. Set the camera up to
center focus point only and that might help.
> In the case of Mich's portrait, I wanted to test out portrait style
> lighting. And, indeed, that picture was by in large a success. The light
> came in high from one side, yielding a picture with the feel of a
> traditional portrait, despite the canine subject. The eyes were even the
> center of focus, complete with sparkle.
Perfect.
Well, a bit cluttered in back but not bad. If you were going to frame
it, that would be worth cleaning up.
> Now, I still have a couple of more flashes to bring out of retirement, along
> with an umbrella or two, and some old light stands. Given a better
> background and a human subject, what do you think my portraits will look
> like? (Get ready to pick your jaw off the floor.)
>
> Re: unplugged,
This one looks squashed somehow... maybe it's just the guitar tilted but
the crop emphasizes that feeling... or has it been modified somehow?
> I was simply trying to get the subject in the area I wanted
> it. In my earlier, concert shooting days, I often shot guitarists in a
> similar position with either another guitarist, or the keyboardist, or the
> drummer faded high on the right side, with the neck of the near subject's
> guitar pointing in the general direction of the secondary subject.
> Obviously, I didn't have access to a complete band, but I use my ability to
> preconceptualize a scene and shot the pic with the subject roughly where he
> would need to be to get the idea I was after.
>
> Soon, I will be shooting a band, live, and you will see a very similar look
> and feel in those pics.
>
> In each of the situations, I did not get everything I wantede, but I got
> part of it (ever heard of R&D). And, in the future, I WILL improve upon
> these results.
Hey, I squint when composing sometimes to get a better sense of the big
picture - you've got that built in <g>. Seriously though, I imagine you
take this all quite seriously, it must have a unique importance in your
mind which others may not automatically emphasize (ugh, that's poorly
worded but I'm too tired to re-write <g>) I suspect you know what I
meant. I think you should be able to accomplish things that would not
even occur to many people.
> Now, if your average snap shooter with a fancy camera puts this much thought
> into his or her pics, then that is what I am, and I will be quite happy with
> the fruit of my labour. If my work is indicative of a somewhat deeper level
> of talent, which I hope it is, then I expect your rants will necessarily
> adopt even more invective slurs and degratory statements in the future.
> Just keep in mind your words betray more about yourself than they highlight
> about me.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Nicko
wrote:
> Switching to BW and cranking up the LCD brightness seems to help a bit with
> composition...
>
> Now, the backgrounds need attention.
>
> Homework:http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg(full size)http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework-small.jpg (quick
>
> Unplugged:http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.jpg (full size)http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged-small.jpg (quick
>
> Portrait of a guide dog:http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.jpg (full size)http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich-small.jpg (quick load)http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.cr2 (original RAW)
>
> As always, comments / critiques are both welcome and appreciated...
OK. You asked for it:
Why do you bother to waste bandwidth with this stuff?
--
YOP...
George Kerby
On 3/6/09 3:36 PM, in article 4523r45fjinat1g80...@4ax.com,
"Get Real" <g...@spambegone.org> wrote:
<spam shit snipped>
>
> Get Real
>
I would like to. As in your Real *NAME*, you cowardly motherfucker. Maybe
you just might develop a detached retina, or maybe an "accident" involving a
telescope and the sun? Fucktards like you need to be pissed on...
Ray Fischer
>"Get Real" <g...@spambegone.org> wrote:
>>> Regarding Mich, I can make out a bit of the catchlight in his eye, so I'm
>>> wondering if that worked out. My fear is that, if I can notice it, it might
>>> be that his eye is looking a bit glassy to everybody else?
>>>
>> Doesn't matter.
>
><spam shit snipped>
>>
>> Get Real
>>
>I would like to. As in your Real *NAME*, you cowardly motherfucker. Maybe
>you just might develop a detached retina, or maybe an "accident" involving a
>telescope and the sun? Fucktards like you need to be pissed on...
Obviously, you are unable to reply in a manner that would be considered
reasonable to most folks: Just insults like a spoiled five year old. You just
can't do any better. Sad.
kerby in <C5BC8977.2207B%ghost_...@hotmail.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
George Kerby
On 3/7/09 12:52 PM, in article 49b2c28b$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
And YOU are telling other people that THEY are presenting unreasonable
manner? And being "childish"? Now that is RICH!
You not only wrote the book on such boorish behavior, you designed the cover
and started the publishing company.
Rotten Fish-Head, you are the dullest waste of the Krebbs Cycle and useful
oxygen to ever grace this Earth. Not to mention about as intellegent as a
paramecium.
Don't believe me? OK, just have one of your loved ones (if there are any
that would claim that position) read any one of your posting rants in here
about the most off-topic crap that you seem to cling, much like a dung
beetle's hold on one of Rita's dog's turds.
Get REAL, yourself.
Come to think of it, is that your nym-shifting work, you little man?!?
Ray Fischer
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to. As in your Real *NAME*, you cowardly motherfucker. Maybe
>>> you just might develop a detached retina, or maybe an "accident" involving a
>>> telescope and the sun? Fucktards like you need to be pissed on...
>>
>> Obviously, you are unable to reply in a manner that would be considered
>> reasonable to most folks: Just insults like a spoiled five year old. You just
>> can't do any better. Sad.
>> kerby in <C5BC8977.2207B%ghost_...@hotmail.com>
>
>And YOU are telling other people that THEY are presenting unreasonable
>manner?
I just quoted your words.
>You not only wrote the book on such boorish behavior, you designed the cover
>and started the publishing company.
>
>Rotten Fish-Head, you are the dullest waste of the Krebbs Cycle and useful
"Just insults like a spoiled five year old."
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net