Put a link to your pictures in your footer!

[@!ex]

I would just like to start a new trend on CR. I must admit that I am new here and don't want to step on any toes, that being said I often find people posting critiques and advice on here which is what this amazing space is for but I alway have this curiosity about the quality of their images. If I am impressed with someones images then I often take their advice much more seriously, but I often find that there are a lot of armchair professionals in forums like this. For me the great equalizer in photography, is your photography. So I propose that everyone post a link to a website where they post their photography, be it a blog or a dedicated photography community such as flickr, in their footer/signature. I think it would add a lot to this community if we could see each others work, and in doing so become more intimate with each other and get more aquatinted. In addition it would add to your credibility and overall make this site more photo-centric.

This is just a thought/suggestion, but I would like to hear everyones opinion on this. Talk amongst yourselves (said in jewish Mike Myers voice).

 

[Loswr]

I agree, and have done so from near the beginning.

A note to new users - there a certain threshold number of posts (variable and changed by the mods occasionally) before you can put a link in your signature, to limit SEO spam.

 

[RLPhoto]

Agreed. Portfolios are the end all be all and should be included if you want to help others really see what your talking about.

Some are good with portraits, some not so much.

Some are good with landscapes, some not so much.

Some are good with macro, some not so much.

Some are good with strobist work, some not so much.

Whats great is that forums like this help to gain flexibility in areas one may not be very skilled in.

Alex, You are a excellent HDR artist and landscaper. I dont care for HDR, but your are good at it.

 

[picturesbyme]

Support the idea to know who the people are and actually see if they know what they are talking about and kinda tried to encourage it too a while ago
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6114.msg129489#msg129489
but... maybe something about that armchair...

 

[RLPhoto]

Support the idea to know who the people are and actually see if they know what they are talking about and kinda tried to encourage it too a while ago
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6114.msg129489#msg129489
but... maybe something about that armchair...

I never noticed this thread. Noted and Posted. 8)

 

[@!ex]

Thanks for your input guys, we should keep bumping this thread so that it gets some recognition. I'd really like to see this catch on...

 

[RLPhoto]

I agree, and have done so from near the beginning.

A note to new users - there a certain threshold number of posts (variable and changed by the mods occasionally) before you can put a link in your signature, to limit SEO spam.

I just saw your equipment. JAKSDHFKGDIHFEHBSDBFEK!?!?!?

 

[Loswr]

I just saw your equipment. JAKSDHFKGDIHFEHBSDBFEK!?!?!?

If that somehow stands for, "You need to add the 1D X to your gear pics," you're right - thanks!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Personally, I prefer that users attach 1-4 images (No more). I'm security conscious, and well aware that someone can add a link that leads to a website that inserts trojans. Even some of the photography forums have been hit by issues like this and caused readers a lot of problems.
The website owner may not even be aware of the issue.

 

[picturesbyme]

Don't see that a problem.
So far had zero issues here. Even if I would get to an unknown field I trust my Kaspersky IS. (Works better for me than any of the Norton SWs I had.)

Plus, according to the forum rules:
"Therefore, new members do not get to add a signature until they have posted enough times about actual photography topics that we are sure they are not spammers. When this happens, their status will be upgraded and they will be able to add signatures. This happens normally after several posts."

 

[@!ex]

Personally, I prefer that users attach 1-4 images (No more). I'm security conscious, and well aware that someone can add a link that leads to a website that inserts trojans. Even some of the photography forums have been hit by issues like this and caused readers a lot of problems.
The website owner may not even be aware of the issue.

Do you have a bomb shelter in your house?

 

[bdunbar79]

The problem with this idea is that anymore, it isn't about photography. Most of the photos posted on here I don't even look at because you can tell they are so heavily processed afterwards that it's art anymore, and not photography. It's now how well you can work your camera and lenses, it's how well you know Lightroom and Photoshop. Most of the people with awesome photos wouldn't have survived the film days, sorry. I'd much rather see basic processed RAW files out of LR or Camera RAW and converted to JPEG, 60 seconds tops, not 3 hours in Photoshop. Again, that's why since digital photography, I don't really care too much about posted photos. Some photographers love and blend the two arts together, but me personally, that's why some days I go shoot with my EOS-3, because you CAN'T get it wrong with film, it's either right, or not. Period. No fancy after effects.

That's my personal opinion and my observations over the last 5 years.

 

[Loswr]

...with film, it's either right, or not. Period. No fancy after effects.

Shhhhh...don't tell Ansel Adams!

 

[@!ex]

The problem with this idea is that anymore, it isn't about photography. Most of the photos posted on here I don't even look at because you can tell they are so heavily processed afterwards that it's art anymore, and not photography. It's now how well you can work your camera and lenses, it's how well you know Lightroom and Photoshop. Most of the people with awesome photos wouldn't have survived the film days, sorry. I'd much rather see basic processed RAW files out of LR or Camera RAW and converted to JPEG, 60 seconds tops, not 3 hours in Photoshop. Again, that's why since digital photography, I don't really care too much about posted photos. Some photographers love and blend the two arts together, but me personally, that's why some days I go shoot with my EOS-3, because you CAN'T get it wrong with film, it's either right, or not. Period. No fancy after effects.

That's my personal opinion and my observations over the last 5 years.

...with film, it's either right, or not. Period. No fancy after effects.

Shhhhh...don't tell Ansel Adams!

Ha, ha. Made me laugh because it's so true. Photography has always had a darkroom art to it, now the drakroom is just digital. Sure you can snap some shots and have a lab process them for you, just like you can shoot RAW and do little to no post. That has always been the case, but masters, and people who actually have images other people want to hang on their walls usually do a lot of image manipulation (film or digital). It's funny to me, but I often find that the people who are most resistant to post production the so called "traditionalists" A) don't realize the historical perspective of how much darkroom work has always been done and B) aren't any good with computers. I know tons of older photographers who began with film, but LOVE digital because it frees them up to realize the photographic (or artistic) vision they have in their head with much less exposure to toxic chemicals, and able to realize their vision much faster. Using the freedom of digital allows some to prosper and figure out new ways to explore the medium, to push boundaries and create new art. You say most of the people with awesome images now wouldn't have been able to survive the film days, the same is true about many of the film photographers I see now, they won't survive the digital age. It also allows some to stagnate and become old grumpy curmudgeons. Use it to your advantage instead of just bitching about it, grow, evolve, the rest of the world will wether you do or not.

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't think anyone's bitching about anything. I'm just pointing out that (NOT you by the way) that some who say, "Oh look what my 1D X can do!", or "Wow, the 5D Mark 3 is awesome!" and then post photos, those photos have some to do with the camera of course, but a good majority of it due to post-processing. I guess personally I want to see as little-processed (my own word) photos as I can, so that I can get an accurate respresentation of the actual photography going on. I"m personally not interested in seeing a photo that has been heavily processed in photoshop. It's just not me, sorry. I am in NO WAY claiming to be an artist. I respect professionals who are great at the photography and art. Yes, I do some HDR and ME work myself. It's fun! But when people share photos, especially on forums, the photos are going to be their best work, in-camera and post-processed. The post-processing part just doesn't interest me. I think the photos are aesthetically pleasing, sure. But it's more impressive to me at least to see a great photo that hasn't been processed much, if at all.

If you are a pro of course, doing weddings, sports, you HAVE to do it. I HAVE to do it. Doesn't make it more interesting to me though.

And yeah, sorry, guess I can't let go of the old-school film days Oh Kodachrome slide film...................

Edit: I've totally taken this thread off the original tracks. My apologies!

 

[picturesbyme]

The problem with this idea is that anymore, it isn't about photography. Most of the photos posted on here I don't even look at because you can tell they are so heavily processed afterwards that it's art anymore, and not photography. It's now how well you can work your camera and lenses, it's how well you know Lightroom and Photoshop. Most of the people with awesome photos wouldn't have survived the film days, sorry. I'd much rather see basic processed RAW files out of LR or Camera RAW and converted to JPEG, 60 seconds tops, not 3 hours in Photoshop. Again, that's why since digital photography, I don't really care too much about posted photos. Some photographers love and blend the two arts together, but me personally, that's why some days I go shoot with my EOS-3, because you CAN'T get it wrong with film, it's either right, or not. Period. No fancy after effects.

That's my personal opinion and my observations over the last 5 years.

...with film, it's either right, or not. Period. No fancy after effects.

Shhhhh...don't tell Ansel Adams!

Ha, ha. Made me laugh because it's so true. Photography has always had a darkroom art to it, now the drakroom is just digital. Sure you can snap some shots and have a lab process them for you, just like you can shoot RAW and do little to no post. That has always been the case, but masters, and people who actually have images other people want to hang on their walls usually do a lot of image manipulation (film or digital). It's funny to me, but I often find that the people who are most resistant to post production the so called "traditionalists" A) don't realize the historical perspective of how much darkroom work has always been done and B) aren't any good with computers. I know tons of older photographers who began with film, but LOVE digital because it frees them up to realize the photographic (or artistic) vision they have in their head with much less exposure to toxic chemicals, and able to realize their vision much faster. Using the freedom of digital allows some to prosper and figure out new ways to explore the medium, to push boundaries and create new art. You say most of the people with awesome images now wouldn't have been able to survive the film days, the same is true about many of the film photographers I see now, they won't survive the digital age. It also allows some to stagnate and become old grumpy curmudgeons. Use it to your advantage instead of just bitching about it, grow, evolve, the rest of the world will wether you do or not.

What Alex said!

+
My father loved 35mm B&W film - all he had back then anyway.. - and I was about 5 or 6.
He did all kinds of fancy effects on some of those photos .. that was about 35 yrs ago...
Every Photographer I looked up to - and I'm not talking about journalists since that's a totally diff. field - were people who had a very critical view and wanted to be better and wanted to make their creation better.
I have the same view. Every photo I take, I find something that could/can be better. I am not a journalist, I am not interested to show "snapshot reality" in a way anyone can see it, I'd like to show it in my way. That means I change it - by re-shooting or CS - until I'm satisfied with it. Of course that doesn't mean I'm still going to be happy with it a year later...