Is there a way to lighten up a photo without expensive software?

No different. They are photographers who work either as free-lancers,
or for agencies so they can feed themselves. Some are very good, some
are hacks.

Again, many of those are agency photographers. The primary purpose is
the job, the secondary the accolades, including the Pulitzer prizes for
the ego stroke. However, quite a few are self admitted thrill seekers,
addicted to the danger surrounding them, and many have paid an enormous
price. Among that group are photographers such as Capa, Burrows,
Ellison, Flynn and hundreds more who did not survive SE-Asia. Also,
there were those who were terribly injured such as Tim Page in Vietnam,
and Joao Silva in Afghanistan. Many were young enthusiasts obsessed
with "getting the front page shot" that would get them a whole $25
bonus in the Vietnam War days.

So, you notice that there is a difference between the two?
Kevin Carter got a Pulitzer for his shots in Sudan, forensic
photographers get their salary and sometimes overtime. However, Carter
couldn't deal with what he witnessed, got lost in drug use and
committed suicide.

Never underestimate the desires and taste of the public.

 

Even in the above you glorify the photographers who make their living
capturing the misery of others.

Yes, I think they are brave and that their work brings home how ugly
and devastating war an other crimes against humanity can be. But,
when push comes to shove, they are just doing what Weegee did in a
different theater.

Of course. There's a purpose to the forensic photographer's work that
is greater than any compensation he/she might receive for the job.
Their work does not just capture misery, but captures the conditions
for a specific future purpose.

 

On 12/22/2013 10:40 AM, Savageduck wrote:

By itself it is a well exposed documentary image. I consider his tats
to be art. If the image is part of a series, then I would probably
consider the series to be art.

 

That is exactly what it is.

Just because the subject is wearing art does not necessarily make that
particular image art. They are two very different things.

Oh! it is part of a series alright! ...and that was probably the most
clinically presentable of the bunch.
I suppose one could have a gallery present a 60-80 shot show
documenting "ignominious death in gangland".

 

i never show incorrect attributions. i trim all but the most recent one
because that's the one to which i'm responding and the only one that's
relevant. the rest is noise.

any quoted text beyond one level is there for context and is likely in
a different colour anyway so there won't be any confusion about
attributions, but for those who are confused over the obvious, just
click on the referenced links, all the way back to the first post, if
necessary.

 

Of course.

what I ws getting at was a series, shot for an artistic purpose, no
matter how macabre . e.g. "images from the morgue;" "tats." if they were
shot from a different POV.
I am working on a project that I call "Sidings; Stoops & Steps of
Savannah." I do not consider any one image of mine to be art. However
the collection, when completed, hopefully will be. It will be the
relation of the images that qualifies.

 

that type of "context" leads to incorrect attributions, and causes
confusion. when I want to accuse you of contradicting yourself, the
proof is gone.

 

Yup! I went to college with a guy who shot nothing but close ups of
door knobs, antique, contemporary, glass, ceramic, metal, etc.. When
put together they were absolutely amazing art.

 

A rich source for photographers. These two were taken in Savannah:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bc0wqaycxc776lt/2011-08-03-01.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s94svvckw5bph0a/2011-08-03-02.jpg

The first one needs re-doing with some perspective change.

The building with the steps in the first one has two flights of
stairs. This is a shot taken 4 years earlier of the same place, but
the other set of steps and put through a PS filter.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tzd9phc3qo21foy/2007-12-29-03.jpg

We usually stay in the Planter's Inn on Reynolds Square.

 

Yup! I figure the project should take several years. It gives me an
excuse to keep coming back.

These two were taken in Savannah:

I would mask out the filter on the lamp post. I think that it causes a
distraction fron the building

We usually stay at the Springfield Suites. Marriott give me good deals.
Hopefully we will stop there on the way back.
My wife really likes dinner at the Olde Pink House, which IIRC, is next
door to the Pink House.

One day I will convince my wife to go on a ghost tour.

 

That's true, but only if you don't have to think more than one level
back up the discussion. In the common situation where several people
interweave their comments it's very easy to find that you don't know
who said what, or exactly what it is you are discussing.

You can't assume colours. For example, I see all quoted text as blue:
none of these greens, reds or yellows. Others see all text in black
and only the quote levels distinguish one from another.

But even colours don't help you with higher level quotes, if
attributions are missing.

 

.... everything is art to somebody?

 

Is it a joke?

 

it *never* leads to incorrect attributions, ever, unless the reader is
confused.

i include only the most recent attribution, which is *always* correct.

it's the only one that's absolutely necessary. rarely is a second level
needed.

the other text is *always* marked by incrementing quote levels (i.e.,
not the provided attribution) and serve as context.

more than a couple of levels is rarely needed. it's noise.

if you don't remember who said what, click the link and find out.

 

i'm replying to the most recent level which is attributed. the rest is
for context.

i'm not replying to those levels directly, so they need not be directly
attributed.

they're there so that the text i'm responding to is clear and
unambiguous.

you can always click the attribution link to find out more.

that's' why i said 'likely in a different colour'.

i didn't say it always was.

of course they do. that's *why* they're a different colour.

 

It someone doesn't understand what you are saying, YOU have failed to
communicate effectively.

 

what part do you not understand?

 

Huh!

 

The Pink House is right next door to the Planter's Inn.

We found the Planter's Inn years ago, and remained loyal to the place
because so much is within walking distance. The last couple of visits
to Savannah we took bicycles on the bicycle rack, so we don't even
have to walk that much.

 

Winter in Barrow (home to Floyd), located above the Arctic circle is
notorious for minimal Sun light hours, Summer is the reverse.
For all of December and most of January there is not exactly a need for
sunscreen.
<
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=3333&month=12&year=2013&obj=sun&afl=-13&day=1