John Wallis of thin sliced time has volunteered for a new effort here at blogs.photoblogs.org: promoting better photography through careful reviews of his work. With proper constructive criticism — specific examples to support points, and perhaps highlighting shots elsewhere which achieve greater success, we hope John can improve. And if others thnk hard about what's said, we should all be able to benefit.

John's site is here.

(John hereby wins free access to The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page...)

Frank

Do you get enough constructive criticism in your comments?

Do you give enough constructive criticism when you comment?

I ask because one of my major disappointments with comments is the low frequency of comments that really tell me how I can improve. I have regular visitors who sometimes comment with positive thoughts, and I guess I can interpret their silence on other shots as "this didn't move me enough to comment," but how often do you really hear advice — or give it — that will help someone's photography?

I get about 300 visits a day. much of it for the political commentary, but it's rare that I get more than two comments on a shot. What am I supposed to do widdat? What are you supposed to do with all of your silent visitors? (I am grateful to those who take the time for that much, don't get me wrong...)

And since so many people say they've registered their sites here so as to get better, it's Clara Peller time!

So in this thread, I'm asking for volunteers of both stripes: those who want to open themselves up to concrete, detailed criticism; and those who are willing to mete it out. No pay for either group, although everyone gets free access to the best resource for Samuel Johnson quotations on the web, for a year, The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page.

(The free access is a joke, it's free to all, but the sentiment is sincere: let's all work together to increase our art and skills.)

What I'm thinking about is a different kind of spotlight: one that doesn't celebrate excellence so much as draws everyone's attention to a photographer that could use help.

Frank
PS, I'm not so arrogant as to avoid constructive criticism, so count me as a volunteer for the former.

The great Justin Ouellette from Chromogenic.net has written an excellent article on his blog on how you can develop your own B&W film in your bathroom... and for damn cheap. One of the better and more helpful articles I've seen in quite some time. Enjoy:

Become Your Own Lab For $49.38

I am about to embark on a new photo essay and I have decided to shoot it on nothing but film...getting back to where my passion for photography started...with film and a Nikon 35mm SLR.

In this day & age of glorious digital cameras one must not forget what medium still provides the base for photography.  Shooting film requires technique, preparation and a keen eye for subject matter.  It also requires some knowledge on which film provides the best results and has the greatest strengths when it comes to certain aspects of "getting the shot". 

So, as I embark on shooting I referred to a recent comparison on Popular Photography's website of both b&w and color film available in the marketplace.

Here are two PDF's to download:

Black & White film

Color film

Also, any thoughts, from all the photoblogs.org readers, to share on your favorite film to use and why you tend to use it more than others?

Lastly, I am planning on purchasing nik Multimedia's Color Efex Pro 2.0 ...it offers a complete range of 75 traditional and stylizing photographic filters for the photographioc editing process...you can demo the product at their website.  Anyone out there using this product...thoughts?

I was recently watching The Screen Savers on G4techTV and saw a segment on making photo mosaics with your photos using AndreaMosaic.  This is a simple program which asks you which photos you would like to use, what photo you want to make a mosaic, how many tiles you want, and a few other basic questions.  Then, all you have to do is click the Make the Mosaic button.  In a matter of minutes you have your mosaic.  Enjoy, and share your creations! 

I've lost some images. Seems like a good topic for this group. My camera is set for continuous numbering. So, when I put in a new memory card, format it, and take a picture, the camera makes a directory "564CANON" and writes the file "IMG_6433.JPG." When the count reaches IMG_6500, the camera makes a new directory "565CANON" starting with "IMG_6501.JPG"

Ok. So, I get home, pop the card in the computer and there are two directories, but the first directory is empty. Second directory is normal. I know I'm missing at least 50 files. Where have they gone? I pop it back in the camera, put it in review mode, and still missing. I doubt foul play. The camera never left my hand. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just a glitch in the Matrix?

Any suggestions for data recovery?

I'm going to a party on the weekend and planning on taking a bunch of shots there. So far, doing indoor photography where a lot of people are standing and moving around a lot has been tricky for me. I'm wondering if people have any tips for me on this sort of environment - technical or social . Is an external flash unit mandatory at this sort of thing? Do you shoot from the hip with your SLR while chatting? Any kind of advice is appreciated.

I seem to be having some problems with RAW Images. I can take them just fine but my computer isn't reading them. I was wondering if anyone out there was having this problem. I've been researching but can't seem to find a thing about it. Anyone got any helpful hints?

I recently stumbled upon this plugin for Photoshop and Paint shop Pro. Its called Virtual photographer and has some pretty interesting filters you can apply to your photos. Maybe Im behind the times but Id never heard of it before. I'll be trying it out over the next few days. Looks like it might be fun.

Print is such a different world. It's all about DPI. It's all a mystery to me. But I am confident we will work it out.

Heiko, March 2004

Anyone coming across the news/magazine/advertising world is bound to come across a puzzling talk about dpi as a key indicator of the digital images one submits. For the amateur photographer it's confusing at best. Luckily, Gisle comes to the rescue with the Pixel FAQ:

Pixels and derived terms such as ppi/dpi and resolution are probably among the most misunderstood things in digital photography. The major source of confusion is the fact that a ppi field is embedded in the image metadata by most digital cameras. This gives some people the idea that pixels do have size and that print resolution is somehow a basic attribute of the image file. This is, of course, nonsense. Size in inches is not really an attribute of an digital image until it is rendered on some output device, so there is no reason one should attach any meaning to the print resolution embedded in the file. But people do, and get confused.

Q 2: My expensive camera outputs images that is only 72 ppi! How can I increase its resolution?

The ppi-number embedded in the image file by your camera is meaningless. Don't worry about it.

Users of BreezeSoft's Downloader Pro can automatically set the JPEG's dpi to 300 to avoid confusing email exchanges with the printers. If not, read Gisle's FAQ on how to do it lossless in Photoshop.

Cross-posted from my personal blog.