A New Shutterbug

[Space Patroller]

That's me.

Why this is noteworthy is that it is at the tender age of 63. What that is all about is that, given my physical condition, only the bareest minimum of attempts were made to train me in visual matters. Yet it was all around them. As early as age 4 I had a strong interest in flying things. At age 7 I found the motiviation to read, (did you really think that Dick and Jane or New Friends and Neighbors would cut it for me? No shot: it was COLLIERS' and LIFE magazines' articles on space travel that were the prime movers here). when in 1954, my class became aware of the Crayola 64 color set, I HAD to have it and I used to be able to draw pretty well. But then the concept "low vision" had not really come into its own and below a certain level, such persons were lumped in with "blind". Consequently I just wasn't trained in matters visual and am for the most part self-taught. I never regarded that as any great shakes since I was more interested in the things it got for me. It was only later that I realized the size of what I had done, compensating for a 90+% deficit to a point that I was in the middle level of reading skill in my Freshman year as measured by the Science Research Associates' reading skills program. Also I became a fair sandlot ballplayer, specifically football and basketball and a mediocre hitter in baseball with a strong and accurate throwing arm; if I could see it, I could hit it, all of which I enjoyed tremendously. In short, I became moderately competitive with full-sighted persons with my mental skills often giving me an edge or making me of greater usefulness. I was also a voracious reader. This exacted a price. having accpmplished this, I became willfull and headstrong and very intolerant of disrespect.

One of those things I missed out on is taking pictures. by the time a boy in 1956 was 11, he had a Brownie Haskey camera and was able to use it. That was not the case for me. I didn't miss it since I was wrapped up in other thihngs. Over the last 20 years, I've had a mild interest in photography, as a means to an end rather than an art. However the plethora of cameras, films and other paraphenalia was daunting to me and it was questionable whether I could use the viewfinder. So it went un-acted upon.

Well, just a few weeks abo I saw a Polaroid i739 on ebay for $US65.00 and said "If I'm to get it done, I must start somewhere". A digital camera would be perfect for me. No film to have to figure out, buy and run out of, so I can practice until the cows com home and the LCD is the viewfinder so I'm home free there: It's all good. so I grabbed it up and learned to use it. I still have some learning to do with regard to lighting and things but I think I can handle it. I've been like a kid in a candy store thereafter. Since I don't have to buy film for it I can just go crazy taking pictures and deleting them or putting them on the computer and learning to edit and retouch. The invention of a usable LCD had made the viewfinder obsolete and I can easily handle the 2.5" screen.

This can also serve as a "PC camera" for video conferencing. Am I to presume that this means webcam? With voice IM, which I have enabled, this is the staple of sci-fi known as the videophone. To accomplish this, I need some kind of clip to attach this to my flat-screen monitor.

Now for a kicker. In 1968 we had 3 things. the keypunch machine, the teletype and closed circuit television. I suggested the marriage of the three to make the input for the cardpuncher visiable to and editable by, the operator before the actual card punch was done. This would decrease spoilage due to typographical errors by a huge amount. I was considered a mad visionary. Well look at computers today. I am no longer considered a visionary. And just think of what the ubiquitousness of keyboards has done for the typographical error idnustyr.

[gags]

Congratulations on finding a new hobby. Photography has always been interesting to me, but I've never had the time to pursue it.

[DavidV]

If you're serious about photography, I would suggest a few things:

• A DSLR camera - you can get a used 6MP camera on eBay or something. (I have a Sony Alpha a350)
  
• A tripod - it will dramatically expand the kinds of shots you can take. (I have a full-size tripod and a small gorillapod.)
  
• Get a Flickr Pro account to share your photos
  
• Photo management software: I use Google Picasa (free) and Adobe Lightroom
  
• Photo editing software: I have Photoshop, but you can get free software like Paint.Net
  
• Keep up with some amateur photography websites for new techniques and ideas - like http://www.stuckincustoms.com/ and http://digital-photography-school.com/
  

[Space Patroller]

If you're serious about photography, I would suggest a few things:

• A DSLR camera - you can get a used 6MP camera on eBay or something. (I have a Sony Alpha a350)
  
• A tripod - it will dramatically expand the kinds of shots you can take. (I have a full-size tripod and a small gorillapod.)
  
• Get a Flickr Pro account to share your photos
  
• Photo management software: I use Google Picasa (free) and Adobe Lightroom
  
• Photo editing software: I have Photoshop, but you can get free software like Paint.Net
  
• Keep up with some amateur photography websites for new techniques and ideas - like http://www.stuckincustoms.com/ and http://digital-photography-school.com/
  

Thanx G and G

I'm not ready to go THAT crazy yet. this is mostly for utilitarian purposes. Also, I have a place to put them if I need to . My domain has 30 GB of space of which I've used a grand total of 5 and may go up to 6 and 600 GB of band of which I've never used as much as 4.

I've given my USB devices girls' names. my camera is Dagny, my card reader is Dominique, my mp3 player is Kira and my Flash Drive is Gaea. That way I can say I have a girl in every port.

Corner time?

[Space Patroller]

Actually I have about 5 photo editors and viewers. Ulead Photo Explorer and Photo Express, Microsoft Phto Editor, Irfanview, the limited edtion of ByLight 20/20 and L-View. the last has so many functions I don't know where to begin.

It may be that digital photography, images and grahics could use it's on forum in Productivity. For instance, what's the difference between raster and vector graphics, etc... There's a gazillion image filetypes. Each must be good for something.

What I could use is a key to understanding theings like "gamma", "HSV", "Senh" , "mid-tones" and all of that and I'm talking from the ground up. Also what is "red eye"

Could probably use tips on lighting, ISO, ESV and that kind of thing

In other words, I'm a complete dope about this and need to know where I can find this out.

If you're interested in audio, especially mp3, I can point you to some good stuff.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Actually I have about 5 photo editors and viewers. Ulead Photo Explorer and Photo Express, Microsoft Photo Editor, Irfanview, the limited edition of ByLight 20/20 and L-View. the last has so many functions I don't know where to begin.

I use L-View Pro and I find it is very useful, but you are right that it is not always self evident on how to use it. Friends of mine have told me that PhotoShop is better, but I love the fact that L-View Pro lets me get in there and tinker. I have taken utterly bad photographs or image files and have vastly improved them using this software. Since I know how it works and I'm satisfied with it, I doubt if I would change to another software.

[Trebor]

Interesting thread.

Many years ago I bought my first digital camera. Looking about on the internet at that time, I found a site that I thought to be very helpful, and reading this thread, not having visited that site in years, I wondered if it still existed. It does. It's Arthur Bleich's "Digital Photo Corner"

At the time, years ago, I remember taking a look at the photos posted by his students along with his brief but helpful comments. You don't get to really see all he has to say without paying the significant fee to enroll in his class. But you could, and I assume still can, view the student's photos as posted weekly along with some brief comments by Mr. Bleich. He still holds his class via the internet, but the current one doesn't yet seem to have any student works posted, so I can't speak to what's currently available. (The current class began May 11, so perhaps it's still a bit early for any postings.)

Anyway, having found the site, and having read the comments here, I thought it was interesting that his title essay on his home page is, "Just Say No to Photoshop."

I thought that others might enjoy reading his challenge to the use of graphic programs to enhance photographs. He's not completely against using them -- see his last paragraph -- but I think he makes a valid case against the dependency upon graphic programs for good photos.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I agree that one ought to learn how to take good photographs and not rely on fixing them up afterwards using an image processor. I've been taking photographs since I was nine years old, and I got a Minolta SLR camera one year and I love it. It's not digital, but I noticed that digital cameras are just not as good as film (except perhaps the more expensive ones with huge megapixel capacity). The problem was that when I was running a gallery a few years back and tried to take some photos to make a website, the fluorescent lights really greened out the images. I could have gotten a flourofilter, but then I'd have to start all over, and I wasn't being paid to either take the photographs or the website (though I would get a sales commission). So, instead of starting over, I had the images put onto a CD ROM and tried out L-View Pro, which had a 60 day trial period. I was curious anyhow, and learned a new skill. I even developed a technique of turning flouro pictures into great looking photographs. The interesting this is that one can in effect, make a flourofilter by going to a website that sells flourofilter and crop the image of the filter out, making it larger than the original, and adding it to images using an image processor. That's not the technique I came up with, which is even better, but one can do amazing things digitally to images!

Added on edit: The Minolta X700 gives one exquisite control over aperture, focal field, and time length of exposure. Haven't seen that on a digital camera.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Space Patroller]

I use L-View Pro and I find it is very useful, but you are right that it is not always self evident on how to use it. Friends of mine have told me that PhotoShop is better, but I love the fact that L-View Pro lets me get in there and tinker. I have taken utterly bad photographs or image files and have vastly improved them using this software. Since I know how it works and I'm satisfied with it, I doubt if I would change to another software.

My problem with L-view is that the I've got my widnow BG color to black and my text to whitebut they show up in the L-view as black on black

Ulead Photo Explorer has something that the others don't. Focus, which is an edge softener/sharpener. Microsoft Photo Editor has Auto-Correct which ligtens and sharpens, but also changes the color (guess it never heard of 32 but True Color) sometimes. I use 20/20 to change image format

I inherited may of them in the system and used them for drawing.

Phot Express is for projects. For at least a couple of years I've wnated to do a Space Patrol calender. I can capture images from the show. If I can get a dozen and decent calendar software, I could do this. Maybe 2010 will be the year . Widnows has a calendar wizard with which I experimented by the results weren't that good or I didn't know what I was doing. I want it to be printer-friendly

I just initialized my Adobe ImageReady and Photoshop. It seems like I'm armed to the teeth but have very little idea of what I'm doing.

I got Irfanview because I needed something to make icons.

Back when I had Windows 95, I had their photo editor. I would often find images at the sites I visited and could use it to improve the clarity and color and many of the people whose pix they were liked the job and would have me retouch their other pix. The biggest problem I find is the brightness tended bunch up around the center. I've heard of the blind leading the blind; but the sighted!? Wuzzup with that?

If you work with gif's here's my favorite site for that. It's the only way that I can make transparent BG's

http://gifworks.com

These days, gif's have gotten so good that I can't tell them from jpeg's and tif's. ONe time, gif's used to suffer a horrnedous color . I converted a few once back about 8 years ago to see what the differences were.

I see I've created a monster

Edited May 18, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Space Patroller]

It turns out that the version of L-view that I have is the Pro. I also have provisions for integrating other image editors into Photo Explorer

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

It turns out that the version of L-view that I have is the Pro. I also have provisions for integrating other image editors into Photo Explorer

Actually, I have never been satisfied with the way L-View Pro does lettering on a background -- it's just not clear. But they claim that their latest version does it better. Here's an example:

[Space Patroller]

Actually, I have never been satisfied with the way L-View Pro does lettering on a background -- it's just not clear. But they claim that their latest version does it better. Here's an example:

I see what you mean. I grabbed it up and tried to work on it with Photo Explorer Focus and Microsoft Photo Editor Auto Correct and got nowhere. Well now you know why I have an arsenal.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

There is probably a way to adjust L-View so that the lettering is always on top and not mixed in with the background, but that is not the default. I was given a warning that one layer was not more transparent than the other, so I guess adjustments have to be made regarding how it handles imposing one layer (the background) with the new layer (the lettering). I've just never really played with that aspect of it. It is very good at cropping images and pasting them together without the image bleeding that occurs with the lettering feature. I once took a photograph of my family at a local dinosaur track park next to a reproduction of a brontosaurus. I then grabbed a few cut and past photos of Santa Clause and elves and layered them onto the back of the dino as if Santa was riding the dino instead of a sleigh with reindeer. I posted it onto my website and used it a an email Christmas card. So, some aspects of editing layers onto layers I know how to use, but I haven't figured out the lettering. One would expect the default to be the most clear lettering on the background image.

[Space Patroller]

Just to detour from the main topic slightly. here is my "Planet MP3" page.

http://www.spaceojuke.spacepatrol.us/planetmp3.html

This gets you everything I have to capture, post-produce and convert existing files you may have to MP3's

Also there are some file downloads. By the end of the summer, I am planning to have them replaced by evenly bitrated mp3 files with ID3 tags that work in Properties. They are grouped in banks of 16 for conversion to CD files that will fit on one disk. I will do the same with the replacement and all downloads of files.

For pop music an mp3 bitrate of 128kps is perfectly adequate

Now I'm having ambitions of conquering the Video world. My i739m has a "movie mode" whicn with a 2GB card can record about 57 minutes of AVI vid.

Oh well: Who is John Galt?

Edited May 19, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Just for grins and seeing what they added, I went ahead and upgraded from L-View Pro 2.8 (about 2000?) to L-View Pro 2006. It does have more features, and the texting tool works much better. Here is an example:

[Space Patroller]

Just for grins and seeing what they added, I went ahead and upgraded from L-View Pro 2.8 (about 2000?) to L-View Pro 2006. It does have more features, and the texting tool works much better. Here is an example:

This is what I've been able to do with some of my stiff

http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/2ive_been_framed.jpg

With Microsoft Phto Editor Auto Correct

The next two were with Phto Explorer Image Editor Cntrast & Brightness

1. Auto

http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/3ive_been_framed.jpg

2. Cusom. more to my liking but maybe just a bit extreme for others. (I'd like feedback on this so I can cakibrate my eyesight relative to others)

http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/4ive_been_framed.jpg

Edited May 21, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The digital camera I have at work isn't all that great, though I would say those auto-corrections do improve the image. L-View Pro can also make the images sharper, but it gives you better control, since you can select the operation levels. But, actually, I'm not claiming L-View Pro is the best for all consumers, only that I got used to it and can go into a lot of detail work using it.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here's something I can do with L-View Pro that I'm not sure I can do with other image processing software. Under Image / Operate, it is possible to add two images together. Fortunately, for digital images, adding the positive and the negative equals white. The first image (original) was taken with a PowerShot S110. The colors came out wrong, partially due to the fluorescent lighting. The camera has a built in fluoro-filter, but I can't always get it to work correctly, and this image has a mixture of fluorescent lighting and foreground white flash lighting, so the auto-correct didn't work correctly -- the background wall is an off-white.

So, what I learned to do earlier when I ran another gallery, was to fashion a hand-made digital fluoro-filter that I could add to the original image; using cropping and taking the negative, and resizing.

By using the controls in the adding of the two images, I was able to correct for the false colors, and I sharpened the image.

I think it's rather fascinating what can be done with a little practice and thinking in terms of principles (i.e. positive plus negative equals white).

[RationalBiker]

Not knowing what your base of knowledge is SP, please forgive me if I cover something too rudimentary. Likewise, if I get too technical ask me for clarification.

One thing I might suggest is to be cognizant of the range of light your camera is capable of. Most digital cameras are prettty limited in the number of stops of light that their sensors can detect and properly render. This means you can more easily get blown out white areas or blacked out dark areas. Some editing programs can stretch that light range a little by looking at color values in the digital file and pulling out some detail in the shadows, midtones and highlights but that is very limited. When possible, just keep in mind wide ranges of light in your composition... it can be used for good effects or it can make pictures look awful. Somewhere down the road, and I wouldn't necessarily suggest starting with this type of stuff, you can look at HDR (High Dynamic Range) programs that use multiple exposures of the same image to a create composite image with a very broad light range. I use a program called Dynamic Photo HDR from time to time. Photoshop can do this as well but I preferred the output of the program I use.

One of the technical issues you have with various digital cameras involves sensor size. Virtually all 'point and shoot' cameras (which is the kind you mentioned above) and lower-end DSLRs have sensor sizes smaller than a 35mm film frame. This is less of an issue with point and shoot cameras (as they tend to express the effective zoom range), but on a DSLR it means you do not get the full wide end range of zoom lenses. The plus side is that you essentially get a longer zoom effect. To put that into practical terms, assuming you have a sensor with a 1.5 crop factor, a lens that has a zoom range of 28-135mm would essentially perform like a lens with the zoom range of 42-202mm. You just need to be aware of this primarily if you are interested in doing wide angle work.

Another issue that affects point and shoot cameras is the more restricted aperture range. Since they are 'stopped down' to begin with, it may be difficult to get certain shots where you want to have a pleasing bokeh (blurry background) effect. You may still be able to accomplish this in more close range shots, but the further away the subject is from your camera, the more difficult it will be. This is due to the fact that most point and shoot cameras have such small lenses that they cannot get enough light on the digital film plane. So as a rule, the larger the lens, the more capable it is of shooting 'wide open' (wider aperture). This also allows for faster shutter speeds so that you can stop motion better.

Most point and shoot cameras have some degree of shutter lag that must be accounted for when composing your shot. This is the amount of time between when you depress the shutter release button and when that the shutter actuates.

More pixels does not always mean better picture quality. The more pixels you try to jam onto a given sensor, the smaller the pixel has to be. The smaller the pixel, the more difficult it is for the pixel to gather the light and render the proper color. Consequently, some cameras with lots of pixels produce pictures with lots of 'noise' (miscolored pixels).

In digital photo files you will be dealing strictly with raster graphics. Vector graphics are used in drawing and CAD programs because they allow you to construct graphics in pieces that are resizeable piece by piece.

As for file types, you will predominately be dealing with is .jpg. It is possible that on some point and shot cameras and on most DSLR's you will have a .raw file type as well, though different companies have different proprietary .raw file formats. Two of the essential differences between .jpg's and .raw file formats are as follows;

1) .jpg files are compressed image files in order to make file sizes smaller. Consequently, some image information is unretrievable lost. .raw file formats are typically not compressed and retain all of the initial image information but results in a much larger file size.

2) .raw file formats are generally not processed after the shot, or at most are only minimally processed. What I mean by processed is that some cameras have automatic sharpening, automatic color correction, automatic white balancing and such that are applied to the image just after the shot is taken and are saved into the .jpg file. The .raw file on the other hand does not save all that information and gives you a more 'pure' or 'raw' image which allows the user to apply all those editing techniques post shot. The convenience of the .jpg format is that you get a more 'usable' shot right out of the camera. The .raw format needs to edited in order to presentable for whatever output you are using.

A couple of compositional tips;

1) When shooting images, you generally want to divide your frame into thirds. Try to avoid putting your subject dead center all the time.

2) Photos are typically more visually pleasing if they lead the viewer along some visual 'path' so to speak. Obvious examples include photos of trails, roads, fences, trees and mountains. More abstract examples include people, curvatures of the body, multiple subjects, etc. Simply put, when you look at the photo you want the eye to be guided through the various parts of the photo so that you take in to whole thing. It can be a difficult effect to achieve but when you do it pays off.

Now, none of this should be construed to say that you cannot get wonderful images on a point and shoot camera. You certainly can. It just helps if you are aware that certain hardware limitations mean that you will not be able to get certain types of shots with certain types of effects.

Some websites I would recommend perusing;

www.pbase.com - some professionals and advanced amateurs use this site to present their work. There are some great examples of photography here.

www.fredmiranda.com - equipment and software reviews, articles on photography, a forum to ask questions.

www.dpreview.com - equipment reviews on practically all cameras that come out, usually including samples.

Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll see if I can help. I'm largely a Canon fanboy and I have a substantial investment in my camera and lenses. I'm only an amateur really but I have a decent understanding of many principles of photography.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Not knowing what your base of knowledge is SP, please forgive me if I cover something too rudimentary. Likewise, if I get too technical ask me for clarification.

You bring up some really interesting issues regarding digital cameras. One thing for sure, I think, is that camera pixels are always larger than film grain, so there is always some pixelation when the images are zoomed in on. And unless one has a high quality digital camera software and good image processing, curves will come out like stairsteps of the brick shaped pixels when enlarged. But I'm certainly not an expert on this, as I learned photography from film cameras.

One thing I think they do need to work on now that computers are faster and so is the internet is to redo the whole pixel protocols -- make them smaller and perhaps not brick shaped; more like irregular dots than bricks. Some game designer had come up with different shaped pixels to great effect, from what I hear, but I was also told that pixels are rather hard wired into modern computers. Film grains tend to be more irregular, so you don't get that stairstep curves or fast motions pixelation that I even notice on large digital TV screens.

[RationalBiker]

I thought that others might enjoy reading his challenge to the use of graphic programs to enhance photographs. He's not completely against using them -- see his last paragraph -- but I think he makes a valid case against the dependency upon graphic programs for good photos.

I agree with his primary sentiment - Photoshop will not make you a better photographer. However, many are the pro photographers that rely on PS or some other image editor for post shot processing (workflow) because shooting the RAW image format requires some level of work outside of the camera. Few pro photographers are going to rely on the in-camera processing that is associated with using .jpgs as they want more control over the color, tonality, sharpening, etc. Most (if not all) DSLR's still have some issues with handling proper white balance in different lighting situations. This does not mean that they are relying on the program to make good images; a photographer still has to have an eye for composition, light range, correct aperture and shutter speed, etc. Essentially the better pro photographers view PS and other programs as their digital darkroom. In that light, they develop and handle digital files in the same way that film photographers develop and handle film format. Tweaking images is nothing new just because of the shift to digital. It's just that it is more in the hands of the common man now.

[RationalBiker]

One thing for sure, I think, is that camera pixels are always larger than film grain, so there is always some pixelation when the images are zoomed in on.

Sure, it just depends on how much you have to zoom in or enlarge your image. That said, professional DSLR's in the 10-12 megapixel range are typically more than enough for some decent enlargements and have absolutely no issues with your typical magazine publications, books or web sites. Canon's top studio DSLR has a full 35mm frame sensor with 21.1 megapixels. There is a lot of image information there and you can enlarge that quite a bit. Of course you have to be willing to shell out about 7 or 8 grand. Hasselblad makes a digital back of the medium format size with 50 megapixels.... way expensive of course but capable of incredible images. Digital hasn't killed film (yet) but it certainly gives it a run for it's money, and in many instances the advantages far outweight the minimal gain you get from film resolution. Even that gap is slowly closing.

Even though I don't shoot professionally, I opted for a professional camera because I could afford it. I have the Canon 1D Mark III. That is primarily aimed at action/sports photography due to it's speed, but it is far more versatile than that. It doesn't make me a better photographer, but it allows me the flexibility to exercise what talent I do have. My equipment definitely exceeds my ability at this point.

[Trebor]

I agree with his primary sentiment - Photoshop will not make you a better photographer. However...

I think that the essential question is, what is or what makes a good or great photograph?

Leaving aside whether or not photography is an art form (Rand obviously held that it is not.), just as with the visual arts (painting or drawing with or in various media) it is a method of creating images, representational images (assuming that one does not include abstract images as art).

So then, what is essential to good or great photographs (or paintings or drawings)? (Without an answer, is it possible to determine the appropriate usage of Photoshop or actual darkroom methods in manipulating photographs?)

Edited May 22, 2009 by Trebor

[Space Patroller]

I think that the essential question is, what is or what makes a good or great photograph?

Leaving aside whether or not photography is an art form (Rand obviously held that it is not.), just as with the visual arts (painting or drawing with or in various media) it is a method of creating images, representational images (assuming that one does not include abstract images as art).

So then, what is essential to good or great photographs (or paintings or drawings)? (Without an answer, is it possible to determine the appropriate usage of Photoshop or actual darkroom methods in manipulating photographs?)

To the post prior to this one: I'd love to be abile to learn to use L-view Pro in a systmatic way. Soooo many gadgets! but the differening strengths of differeng programs is why I'm armed to the bicuspids. In addition to Auto-Corect. Microsoft Photo Editor does let you perfomr the operations individually, having Color: amount, hue and saturation. Brightness: brighness, contrast and mid-tones, as well as the usual Resize, crop and the like. But only Photo Explorer has Focus (sharpness). To me, many raw photos appear translucent until I kick up the brightness (adds opacity) and sharpness (edges seem to be a bit blurred) and often the contrast (for distinction). Whether that is real or just a function of my eye, I don't know, but I don't have that trouble with drann or photos on the Web.

For myself, I'm interested in these kinds of things to make the images look as true to life as I can.

There are two difinitions of "art" to whcih Rand ascribed.

1) The Classical arts. music, literature, painting/scupture/archetecture and the stage

2) Implementation in an integrated, systematic fashion. such as the 'art of medicine" as differentiated from teh science of medicine. Music Engineering (mixing, effects etc in such a way that it validates a sense of life. In '93 I composed, played and recored an album called DEADLY FARCE on an X-15 4-track that often used more than four instruments. Wish I had that back. its only flaw was that when you hit Pause there was a click I do have a Port-a-Studio 03 somewhere that I should break out and fire up. Yes, I;m a rock and roller I alos have Audcity and KRISTAL which I really ought to get to work on but I need samples and a controller Kb and tofind the midiport if this puter has one or get a MIDI-USP interface [63 years old and I;m still ready, willing and able to hit the strings and tickle the "ivories"] and things like that) and the like. More recent is sound synthesis; both in imation of acoustic instruments such as string ensembles, wind and brass ensemobles and creation of whole new sounds (and with instruments like the SQ-80 digital-analog synthesizer. WOW!).

I favor the view that there are "quasi-arts" like "abstract" or "non-representative" visuals which have some, but not all of the aspects of full art. Perhaps these may be thought of more as Design "etudes" more than art. 40 years ago I did an "abstract" that used light and dark paired and image sizes that were larger on the outside than towards the center (all the images were triangles) that gave a sense that the thing was either expanding or contracting, sometimes sequentially; sometimes alternativley. That thing would hold your attention for sometimes 5 or more minutes. That was a trip. Even so, my "abstracts" were known for their clarity of shape and color and dictinct edges, where most "abstracts" tended to be dreamy or indistinct". When I ran the lightshow for Resurrection. I used three concepts. pairing colors, having upped the range from the traditional red, yello and blue to full spectrum, placemtn of light source to use light, shadow and complementarity to induce "animation" and rhythm: "playinn" the controls (of which I had 7; red, orange, yellow, blue, green, purlple and the strobe) like an instrument, following either the bass or drums. These made the visual aspect match the movement of the music rather than being just added on or even a distraction (I told you I was a psychedelic "Take the trip without having to drop the acid"). I think phtography can fall into that when you start to do things like composition.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Space Patroller

[RationalBiker]

I think that the essential question is, what is or what makes a good or great photograph?

I think the answer to that is contextual to the purpose of the photograph. Some photographs attempt to document the subject as best it can according to reality. Other photographs attempt to capture something that the photographer sees or wishes to express (a selective recreation of reality reflective of the photographers value judgments). I think I part company with Rand in saying that I think certain types of photographs and forms of photography are forms of art. A good or great photograph is one that essentializes its purpose (at least as best as I can tell).

In photographs that attempt to capture reality, I would offer that the line for editing the photo is pretty minimal except as necessary to compensate for the limitations of the hardware in capturing the image. Of course, since this typically calls for the photographer to restore the scene as he believes he saw it, there is the possibility that his/her bias can sneak into the picture. On the other hand, a photograph designed to capture the photographers selective recreation of reality may call for extensive editing. The photographer/artist may seek to express a particular mood through the photograph that requires a darker overall image and blackening out certain aspects of the image that detract from focusing on the subject... things like that. These two different styles have been blurred together in the past in Photojournalism.

That said, I readily that sometimes drawing the distinction of how much is too much can be very difficult.

I'm not sure if the exactly answers your query but I'm trying to give it a shot.