Hello There!

[Wildieswife]

Hi everyone - I'm from Lancashire, England and found this forum via my husband/Ebay who noticed David had a Sony forum and passed on the info.
I've had a lifelong interest in images, both artistic and photographic, but only got my first DSLR 4-5 years ago - the KM 7D. I now have the A700 but want the A77.....there's always something isn't there?

I've studied photography at City and Guilds 2 and 3 levels and last year I was runner up (of 800 entrants) in the C&G National competition. My husband recently attained a BA hons in Wildlife and environmental Photography and I help him with his work. He has had places in a few International Competitons -including the Master's Cup /International Aperture (4th place)/RHS (Bronze).
Last year he broke from the usual and exhibited a layered city scape of Liverpool on the side of a shipping container in the Look11 International Photography Exhibition in Liverpool. I contributed around 5 images for this and was involved in pasting up etc. It was fun! Unfortunately he has a camera that begins with 'N'. At least it doesn't begin with 'C' ; My main areas of interest, photography wise, are quite eclectic but I feel most comfortable with Insect/Botany Macros and Bird photography . I also tend towards some strange artistic stuff.

I hope to be able to share some images here and hopefully join in - when I have the time!

Pat

[aster]

Welcome to the forum, Pat.

It'll be great to have yet an other lady photographer with such an impressive background in photography. : )

Looking forward to seeing your exciting work!


Yildiz

[jcoffin]

Hi Pat,

Welcome. Seeing somebody join with that kind of credentials is just a bit intimidating, but I'm sure we'll get over it soon enough!

Just be warned: David is one of those wild, uncontrollable Scots. You never know when things might erupt into sax and violins (or some sort of vintage instrument anyway).

[Dr. Harout]

A warm welcome from me too.
Boy am I glad a female (lady) photographer is joining.
Oh, and we don't mind at all that your husband's a Nikon user... nobody's perfect...

[mvanrheenen]

Welcome Pat! Love the contributions you have made, especially of our feathered friends (and yes, I'm biased )!

Looking forward to seeing more of your work!

Mark

[Wildieswife]

Thankyou for the warm welcome. I don't know about 'credentials' - I'm pretty low down on the list with my C&G win I think even the very big names are struggling these days in photography. There are so many people giving stuff away free (some of it very good) and a lot of photo editors are not what they used to be. When I see some of the published images I despair about the qualifications of the person that's chosen them. It's all going down the quantity/cheapness and not the good pay for quality route.

In the stock sites Getty images have taken over Oxford Scientific and are now taking 60%-70% in commission! As far as Alamy is concerned you used to need 1000 + images on there to stand a chance of a pension fund but now it's more like 10,000 +
It's a good job some of us do it because we love it, too!

If anyone's interested this is my OH's web site (I'm building mine still)

http://garytackwildphotos.zenfolio.com/

Thanks again,

Pat

PS - Regarding OH's N***n (spit) it could be worse - he could have a C***n (double spit), in which case he'd turn into one of those C***n toters who swan about reserves sneering at anything else. I have experienced it many times........... doubly so as I'm a woman "Poor little thing - thinks she can take pictures, bless" :

[David Kilpatrick]

Hi Pat - you sound like a dedicated photographer, and several members I know contribute to photo libraries though a couple of our best have departed for other camera systems. I find Sony/Minolta/Alpha excellent for macro and nature, but I've never had much luck on Alamy with anything except specific shots. For example, I'm guaranteed a sale every year if not a few from a couple of snaps of a cluster of giant puffballs which appeared in the garden eight years ago. But no other fungi so far have sold.

Picture editing is something I care a great deal about. The position on the page, the scale, the ordering, the reading direction, the colour harmony and narrative of pictures has always been a priority in our magazines. Then I sell f2 to EC1 and I see for example in the latest issue a DPS portrait where the 'art director' has placed the subject's eye right on the fold, in the gutter, totally destroying the shot - and they do this all the time. I've still got my name at the front of the mag but I have nothing to do with the layout!

Having said that, I learned in newspapers and from some of the best art directors around, and learned to work fast as well. When I had staff they were never under pressure, they often had a day to lay out and edit a feature, not the 30 minutes we used to work to for Photo Technique magazine (48 hours from galley proofs and pix to a finished magazine, working in an office in the print shop). That was Jack Schofield as editor, and he'd just finished a stint working for Bob Guccione on Penthouse as his first job. Three and a half weeks selecting the contents, half a week creating the magazine.

David

[bakubo]

Welcome to the forum! I have already seen some of your great bird shots. Keep posting!

Regarding OH's N***n (spit) it could be worse - he could have a C***n (double spit), in which case he'd turn into one of those C***n toters who swan about reserves sneering at anything else. I have experienced it many times........... doubly so as I'm a woman "Poor little thing - thinks she can take pictures, bless"

I have never understood how people get so emotionally attached to huge, multinational, impersonal corporations and their brand name. In my experience they are all quite good and each have their own advantages and disadvantages. I just think of them as the other party in a financial transaction -- the same as when I buy a washing machine. They treat us the same. The only bit of "loyalty" any of them get from me is what comes from having lenses and accessories that only work with their brand of camera. Anyway, we all don't think alike though and that certainly keeps things interesting.

[Wildieswife]

Thanks again

Hi Pat - you sound like a dedicated photographer, and several members I know contribute to photo libraries though a couple of our best have departed for other camera systems. I find Sony/Minolta/Alpha excellent for macro and nature, but I've never had much luck on Alamy with anything except specific shots. For example, I'm guaranteed a sale every year if not a few from a couple of snaps of a cluster of giant puffballs which appeared in the garden eight years ago. But no other fungi so far have sold.
Picture editing is something I care a great deal about. The position on the page, the scale, the ordering, the reading direction, the colour harmony and narrative of pictures has always been a priority in our magazines. Then I sell f2 to EC1 and I see for example in the latest issue a DPS portrait where the 'art director' has placed the subject's eye right on the fold, in the gutter, totally destroying the shot - and they do this all the time. I've still got my name at the front of the mag but I have nothing to do with the layout!
Having said that, I learned in newspapers and from some of the best art directors around, and learned to work fast as well. When I had staff they were never under pressure, they often had a day to lay out and edit a feature, not the 30 minutes we used to work to for Photo Technique magazine (48 hours from galley proofs and pix to a finished magazine, working in an office in the print shop). That was Jack Schofield as editor, and he'd just finished a stint working for Bob Guccione on Penthouse as his first job. Three and a half weeks selecting the contents, half a week creating the magazine.
David

It's my OH that sells (some) from stock sites - and it often surprises us what sells. I keep meaning to contribute myself rather than just help him out.
Also - it's really interesting to hear about the 'other end' of commercial images. It does sounds as though quality is being sacrificed for economy these days.
As far as Sony/KM are concerned my OH really missed and still misses the richness of colour that he sacrificed on the move to Nikon. He had to change to have access to the college's equipment when he was doing his degree.

I have never understood how people get so emotionally attached to huge, multinational, impersonal corporations and their brand name. In my experience they are all quite good and each have their own advantages and disadvantages. I just think of them as the other party in a financial transaction -- the same as when I buy a washing machine. They treat us the same. The only bit of "loyalty" any of them get from me is what comes from having lenses and accessories that only work with their brand of camera. Anyway, we all don't think alike though and that certainly keeps things interesting.

I agree - it's all rather silly when someone says to me 'You want to get a proper camera' !! It's not what you have but the way that you use it. All the most expensive gear and the biggest lenses don't make you a good photographer - unless you are that as well.

Pat

[David Kilpatrick]

As for the 'proper camera' thing, I have a choice and I also get to see what are supposedly the best results from many professionals using Canon and Nikon. I know my own standards, and although my pictures are pretty ordinary, on the technical side they are generally better than anything short of medium format work. Last year I had to pick four images for 2m x 1m prints, from top award winners. I had 300 to pick from and it was next to impossible to find four good enough; one was from a Hasselblad 16mpixel back, the others from Canon or Nikon full frame 12 or 21 megapixels. Not one was as sharp as my normal Alpha 900, A55, A580, NEX-5 or A77 output at the same size.

So, hundreds of working professionals are using what they consider to the best - yet hardly any of them ever get an optimum result. Therefore, I presume they would not even be able to discern why I use the Sony gear I do. And statistically they wouldn't be able to tell the colour difference anyway unless they're female (much better colour perception) or the sharpness difference unless they are male (much worse colour perception but often higher visual acuity - more rods, fewer cones). Therefore I never get into discussions of C v N v S etc, as I'm assuming that if the other party really thinks Sony is any way inferior they probably don't know how Sony performs - and likely also have little idea how they own gear performs!

David

[Wildieswife]

As for the 'proper camera' thing, I have a choice and I also get to see what are supposedly the best results from many professionals using Canon and Nikon. I know my own standards, and although my pictures are pretty ordinary, on the technical side they are generally better than anything short of medium format work. Last year I had to pick four images for 2m x 1m prints, from top award winners. I had 300 to pick from and it was next to impossible to find four good enough; one was from a Hasselblad 16mpixel back, the others from Canon or Nikon full frame 12 or 21 megapixels. Not one was as sharp as my normal Alpha 900, A55, A580, NEX-5 or A77 output at the same size.

So, hundreds of working professionals are using what they consider to the best - yet hardly any of them ever get an optimum result. Therefore, I presume they would not even be able to discern why I use the Sony gear I do. And statistically they wouldn't be able to tell the colour difference anyway unless they're female (much better colour perception) or the sharpness difference unless they are male (much worse colour perception but often higher visual acuity - more rods, fewer cones). Therefore I never get into discussions of C v N v S etc, as I'm assuming that if the other party really thinks Sony is any way inferior they probably don't know how Sony performs - and likely also have little idea how they own gear performs!

David

Brilliantly phrased! I totally agree. The only thing I can criticise about Sony is that their marketing is perhaps not as aggressive as it could be.Perhaps that is only in this country? They seem to be happy to sell what they sell and possibly rely on people finding out what great cameras they are by recommendation and reviews. I want the A77.................... the increased pixels, amongst other upgrades from the 700, sound pretty useful.
2m x 1m sounds biggish but in the Look11 Exhibition OH had an image the size of the side of a shipping container. This was helped by the fact that it was a combination of multiple large images. Sometimes people crop in too much which decreases the potential for large prints. I don't mind doing this for web but it would be no good for printing so I tend to try keep my options open.

Pat

[mvanrheenen]

Enough with all the unkniwn abreviations already! Figuring out what you are talking about is giving me more headaches than all my Wordfeud games combined! Just kidding

Although just a hobbyist, I can relate to your sentiments about the whole brand-fanboy-thing. As long as it works for you, it doesn't matter what brand you use. A colleague of mine shoots Nikon on dives throughout Europe. He doubted my enthusiasm about using my gear for birding, until he gave my gear a go. He felt pretty ignorant afterwards.

Mark

[Wildieswife]

Enough with all the unkniwn abreviations already! Figuring out what you are talking about is giving me more headaches than all my Wordfeud games combined! Just kidding
Mark

BTW I'm ROFL . YW and TC..........

Pat

[mvanrheenen]

BTW I'm ROFL . YW and TC..........

Pat

Bye the way, I'm rollingnover the floor lauging. You're welcome and ?

What's the last one?

[Dr. Harout]

BTW I'm ROFL . YW and TC..........

Pat

Bye the way, I'm rollingnover the floor lauging. You're welcome and ?

What's the last one?

Take COVER