Anyone still frequent photoradar?

[picsfor]

Wasn't suggesting anyone else should, just stating what I thought I might be doing - I'm on way smaller sites than this one with much more activity and yes, much better quality so you really can't use that one!

You are quite right in that it is your choice to go where you will, and i apologise if i was suggesting otherwise - it's just that 'that' site brings out the best of me.

I do not devote myself solely to this site either, but it think it keeps me in touch with how the DCMag was when i got back into photography after a short absence way back when.
It is horses for courses, a mate of mine loves ePhotozine, but i just can't get on with it - although i've tried a few times.

[Reinardina]

Thinking of returning there - at least there's more activity and many more photos! 

Like a lot of people on this site, you're still there part of the time, aren't you? Why not keep it this way?

I haven't been here very long and haven't worked out half of the things, but I like the feel of it, the friendliness and the fact I wasn't asked to simplify my name, because it is so difficult to spell. And I must admit, I'm used to grumpy people, so they don't scare me!

So far, I find the forums on PR easier to use and navigate, but that could be because I've been there for years, and got used to them.

There are indeed many more photos there, but nobody ever looks at them. It is very laborious to upload and view pictures and no one seems interested in making it more user friendly.

It is, of course, entirely up to you, but if you have the time, I'd say keep in touch with both sites and help liven things up here!
I'm sure any suggestions to improve things, will be looked at in a positive way!

[ABERS]

I think we have to accept that the two sites are inhabited by people with differing outlooks on photography. Here I feel that the contributors are, whilst not self-satisfied, comfortable with what they do. You get the feeling that what they post in the galleries is saying, here's what I do please have a look and I hope you like it.

Whereas on PR there seems to be a constant need to be commented on, and those that do comment are usually the same people all the time, whose level of expertise is not any greater than that of the photographer they are commenting on, so we have a perpetual non-improvment situation.

[Reinardina]

Alan, you are right about the experience and competence of the photographers on this site. Most of the photographers I should say, as I am not amongst them. I like/need/crave feedback as I'm still struggling to find my photographic feet (only two though, not a tripod!).

I'm beginning to realise what my weaknesses are, some are related to my poor eyesight, some to the camera (I like to think.)  I also  hope to find my strenghts (if any).

Any suggestions/advice is therefore very welcome, and I will always  try to follow the advice given. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I get hopelessly lost, and get nowhere. 

I'm not giving up though. Not yet anyway.

[Reinardina]

I won't be joining in over there again.

The site seems to suffer from it's own version of Godwin's law - it's not five minutes before someone who has just bought the latest Cankon as their first ever camera aggressively wades in to just about any thread.

I have been looking at the weekend comp entries recently, and there it definitely is quantity over quality. I reckon that most people would bin the larger part of the entries let alone post them in a competition.

But a lot of people seem to be having fun, and that's what it's all about. Just not what it used to be, and not my cup of tea.

Very regularly, I think Mark (Cutter)'s entry is the only 'proper' quality photograph, but no one else seems to see it.

I'm still trying to win there, and not getting very far. Not saying I have the best entries every time, but sometimes mine are, in my 'modest' opinion, better than some that get more votes. Must admit I've got a bee in my bonnet about the whole thing; I'm convinced some people vote 'with their heart' rather than their eye. Or maybe they know even less about photography than I.

"Just not what it used to be" I couldn't agree more! Still missing the proper entries and critiques!

For the first time in weeks, a quality entry has won!!!!!
And guess what, it was by one of the 'old timers.'
And guess what again; it still did not get the number of votes it should have!

[ABERS]

Took a look and you're right Reinardina. Mind you Sie seems to be in the minority in understanding what backlighting means.

[Reinardina]

Took a look and you're right Reinardina. Mind you Sie seems to be in the minority in understanding what backlighting means.

You mean Sie is a proper photographer. One of the few remaining members of the lost tribe!

[Markulous]

You are quite right in that it is your choice to go where you will, and i apologise if i was suggesting otherwise - it's just that 'that' site brings out the best of me.

I do not devote myself solely to this site either, but it think it keeps me in touch with how the DCMag was when i got back into photography after a short absence way back when.
It is horses for courses, a mate of mine loves ePhotozine, but i just can't get on with it - although i've tried a few times.

No apology necessary! Prefer straight talking anyway! 

EPZ? No thanks! 

Interesting comments re. Backlighting. Personally, I didn't really see any that really met the criterion very well - backlighting should really be where the only light is from behind and onto the subject leaving the foreground and subject front relatively dark, not front (I assume with flash, reflector or processing) and back like the winning image (although very nice!), which then just becomes an overall more even lighting

[Reinardina]

I always understood, that if you photographed 'against the light,' that that was backlighting.
Mind you, I have collected my photographic knowledge over the years, from here there and everywhere, and I cannot be sure of the accuracy of a lot of it.

Maybe the meaning has changed over the years,  and now has a wider meaning?

[Oldboy]

I always understood, that if you photographed 'against the light,' that that was backlighting.
Mind you, I have collected my photographic knowledge over the years, from here there and everywhere, and I cannot be sure of the accuracy of a lot of it.

Maybe the meaning has changed over the years,  and now has a wider meaning?

Here you go from Photography.com. 

Backlighting refers to lighting in a photograph that comes from behind an object. Because backlighting requires a subtle manipulation of a scene's light, photographers consider it a more advanced technique to master. When effectively implemented in a scene, however, backlighting can enhance the finer details of an object (such as the tiny hairs on bug) or a scenes more delicate features (such as the dust particles or drops of mist in a given background).


Oftentimes, backlighting comes from ambient light around the subject of the photograph.

Some experts recommend using a lens hood when trying to enhance the effects of backlighting in photographs. Such a hood can significantly reduce the glare involved when pointing a camera directly into light. Similarly, aperture settings should be set on the shorter side to limit light and reduce the chances of overexposing the film.

If too much light does enter the lens when a photographer is trying to use backlighting, the image will lose definition. Ironically, the use of backlighting can either enhance or diminish the definition and intricacy of a photo, whether or not it is used correctly.

Backlighting is most commonly used in nature and landscape shots. If a photographer uses backlighting in a portrait shot, they are generally trying to add a more dramatic, intense mood to the scene.

[krennon]

I haven't been on PR for years I left there came here and stayed (have looked in now and then but NEVER post), got bored of the sniping, the perceived "rights grab" when uploading to their gallery (dunno if they changed that or not) and just did not like the new layout at all, so i stay here and have got to actually meet (as in IN PERSON) some real photographers who know what they're doing and what they're talking about and have been on shoots with them (we MUST do another meet soon peeps!!!) and I just like the whole attitude of the people on Micks site.
I do belong to dyxum as well but that is a Sony/Minolta/Alpha mount dedicated site and although a nice site and friendly not the same as here.
I love the fact that I can post a pic in the gallery here and it may not be the best shot in the world (far from it) but people take the effort to have a look and comment on it....there are a lot of talented togs on here who I wish I had a quarter of their talent (Eileen, Oldboy, Abers, Andrew, Howard to name a few) who take the trouble to give CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to those of us who are less talented but give advice freely and without shooting the shot down in flames...So CC for me and PR could crash and burn for all I care, the only good thing about DCM as it was, was I got to know about here and communicate with sensible people with a shared interest rather than mainly idiots who just want glory for themselves and just knock other peoples shots because they can.
And apologies if this comes across as a rant having a grouchy morning...

[Reinardina]

OB thanks for that. Unless I interpret it wrongly, it seems I was more or less right about backlighting. It seems to mean all sorts of things, from stark sihouettes to 'see through' shots.

Keith, I love a good rant at times! My husband is good at it, and it makes a refreshing change to read one on a different subject!

And you are lucky, I still have to meet a real photographer! In a private capacity that is.

At the moment trying to get on a local photography course, in the hope to learn a few new things, or rather, a lot of new things! But also in the hope of finding some like minded souls.

At the moment, I'm the only one among my family and friends, who does more than taking family and holiday shots. The result is, that everyone thinks I'm the bee's knees, while I know I haven't even started yet. It's flattering, and highly frustrating at the same time!

[Markulous]

I haven't been on PR for years I left there came here and stayed (have looked in now and then but NEVER post), got bored of the sniping, the perceived "rights grab" when uploading to their gallery (dunno if they changed that or not) and just did not like the new layout at all, so i stay here and have got to actually meet (as in IN PERSON) some real photographers who know what they're doing and what they're talking about and have been on shoots with them (we MUST do another meet soon peeps!!!) and I just like the whole attitude of the people on Micks site.
I do belong to dyxum as well but that is a Sony/Minolta/Alpha mount dedicated site and although a nice site and friendly not the same as here.
I love the fact that I can post a pic in the gallery here and it may not be the best shot in the world (far from it) but people take the effort to have a look and comment on it....there are a lot of talented togs on here who I wish I had a quarter of their talent (Eileen, Oldboy, Abers, Andrew, Howard to name a few) who take the trouble to give CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to those of us who are less talented but give advice freely and without shooting the shot down in flames...So CC for me and PR could crash and burn for all I care, the only good thing about DCM as it was, was I got to know about here and communicate with sensible people with a shared interest rather than mainly idiots who just want glory for themselves and just knock other peoples shots because they can.
And apologies if this comes across as a rant having a grouchy morning...

I pretty much relearned my photography online and through going out with other 'togs (good and bad, pros and amateurs) and luckily had the benefit of honesty rather than massaging of my ego! Cr4p shots were called just that! I've seen many progress their photography but, not getting honest feedback, pick up bad habits and as their images are called 'good' passing on their techniques to others. I am always my worst critic but welcome any comments, good or bad as I'm always striving to be better. So my comments on someone's image tend to what I actually see, an honest appraisal, as that's what I found worked best for me

[ABERS]

I pretty much relearned my photography online and through going out with other 'togs (good and bad, pros and amateurs) and luckily had the benefit of honesty rather than massaging of my ego! Cr4p shots were called just that! I've seen many progress their photography but, not getting honest feedback, pick up bad habits and as their images are called 'good' passing on their techniques to others. I am always my worst critic but welcome any comments, good or bad as I'm always striving to be better. So my comments on someone's image tend to what I actually see, an honest appraisal, as that's what I found worked best for me

The nail hit squarely on the head! Unfotunately it rarely happens, and unless it happens it is a classic case of the blind leading the blind, and we all know who is king in the land of the blind!

[picsfor]

Genuinely constructive criticism - that's a lovely thing to get, and be able to give.
The real trick is knowing if the recipient is up for critique. It is only by getting honest feedback can you improve.

I would also like to thank Keith for his praise, but would suggest he is no worse a photographer than me - after all, who remembers his picture of the Stag in Richmond Park. Any critique given to that pic was really just splitting hairs.

The real beauty of photography is - you never stop learning, and can always try another area of photographer if you feel you need a change.

As for this site, ca,e here at the end of DCM, and never went back. Honest comment, friendly and helpful people - oh and Mick lives just down the road from my home town 
Just that he lives on the Blonde side of the Stour