But you don't have to give your birthday to get an account.
You have to give a birthday, though not necessarily your own.
Aww, some of my favorite places.
I swear I went to a wedding in Portland that had the same band.
Cad/uco/sity? Did one of the doctors leave a magic serpent inside your half-kidney, turning you into a superhero, or something?
I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the birthday toggles.
I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the birthday toggles.
Then your kung-fu is superior to my kung-fu. I saw the little red asterisk next to them, so I filled in the fields.
Early returns indicate that the most popular photos are of cows and people.
I see that you're not taking the low-hanging fruit in picture titling.
I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the birthday toggles.
What's the point of wearing the birthday suit if you don't touch the birthday toggles?
Indeed I'm not, as I'm hoping to be able to show these to unblog people too. I had this one as "sexy mound," but reconsidered.
...but then you called it sexy anyway in your description.
Honestly, Ogged, with scenery like that, how can you be inside on teh internets all the time? Move to a place with strip malls like the rest of us to justify your nerdiness.
how can you be inside on teh internets all the time?
I'll confess that I don't get out as much as I should, but the ocean is just twenty minutes away, so sometimes I go hang out and make it back in a couple of hours, which looks to the internet like I never left.
The more I got into Zooomr, the less I liked it. It just didn't have the capabilities that Flickr has.
Glad to hear you set up a photography home and I hope you enjoy it.
Yeah, I had a couple of people play with Zooomr last night, and they didn't like it, and it was very slow.
Which thread should I hijack to pose a question about Iraq foreign policy. I don't want to ruin this lovely thread about pictures. I'm asking here only because it got commented on recently.
the ocean is just twenty minutes away
I just moved away from the ocean, so go skip a stone for me.
Hijack the one about AWB getting laid. I hate happiness.
Seems like the right thread to mention the (unofficial!) Unfogged Flickr group. (Special thanks to apo for lending his nip for the icon.)
If I haven't screwed up my permissions, the only photos visible to people I haven't invited specifically are, like, two photos of seagulls, right? (Not that I don't love you guys, of course.)
15 -- more like, 3 photos of seagulls and 3 of a snowswept building. I was wondering where the party people were.
Locked up!
(Good; I'm glad to know I haven't accidentally spilled out all over the internet.)
Yeah, I hope I haven't invited indiscretion errors and/or the scorn of the Unfogged adults. So far, the group doesn't seem all that useful except as a directory, but I haven't played around with the features yet.
I think you can do things where when group members post photos they get updated in the group listing, etc.
But I've not played around with these things either.
Ok, no fair--Dawn is some sorta professional photographer, right?
"except as a directory"
...which is itself an eminently useful function, one which lies at the root of this interlinked web of information we call the net. ttaM -- like your photo of Emerson.
I'm not. I'm just an avid amateur. I do it for fun. So while I'd like to weigh in on more blog posts here, I don't because I'm always playing with my photographs. :-)
'Smasher -- are you yourself in the group under some alias I can't figure out? Or just a shadowy, behind-the-scenes enabler of the group?
Also: Everybody catch the photo of Standpipe on Populuxe's page? (Is there any chance people who comment here under a different alias than they have at Flicker will disambiguate themselves? Or is that just an idle dream?)
34: I've posted pictures.
Is there any chance people who comment here under a different alias than they have at Flicker will disambiguate themselves?
In the case you mention, no. I restricted access to the group to invitation/e-mail screening in hopes of minimizing indiscretion errors/maximizing users' privacy.
What are you shooting with, Ogged? For whatever reason your metadata aren't listed with your photos.
For whatever reason your metadata aren't listed with your photos.
All the pictures except those in North On The 1 were shot with the ex's Canon something-or-other, but in transferring them from computer to computer, at some point all the metadata was stripped. My own camera is a Canon A95, and you can see the metadata in the North On The 1 set.
Those are nice photos.
Who, me? If so, thanks! (But y'all should look at Dawn's pics in the Unfogged group.)
I've got a whole lot of pictures on my site at home that I've been thinking of transfering to Flicker -- this might be a good impetus. Is there some way to do a block transfer like eg zip up all my photos and upload them to Flicker as a group? Or do I need to do it one by one?
(Also, what about format? Is this something only people with digital cameras can do? All of mine are shot and developed and then scanned as jpg's.)
If you use Photoshop and Save for the Web, it will strip your EXIF. If, however, you do Save As, it won't.
Also, Flickr gives you the option to turn it on or off. You may have it turned off.
And thanks, y'all.
BTW, I'm not an interloper. I've been one of those lurkers who has read for months but not commented publicly.
Clownęsthesiologist, Flickr has some great tools for mass uploads: http://flickr.com/tools/
Also, scanned .jpgs are great. I do film and digital.
How much post-processing do you do on your pictures, Dawn?
Clownman, you can upload all your jpgs as a batch. There's a little Flickr Uploader doohickey that you can install that will do it for you.
I'm not an interloper
Denial is always the surest sign.
scanned .jpgs are great
Thanks! I'll look into it later this week.
How much post-processing do you do on your pictures, Dawn?
It depends on the photo. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not much. I'm currently in a Duotone/Tritone/Quadtone phase so a lot of my photography is shot in color, converted to grayscale and then have the tones applied.
I used to be a purist until I read comments from some of the more famous photographers who said that photography only begins in the camera. It's the darkroom where the real magic takes place and they advocated using the tools at hand to make the art that was wanted. So I take that to heart. I want to show my vision of what I see - not necessarily the reality of it.
Denial is always the surest sign.
Damn. You found me out.
Don't get defensive, Dawn.
I, of course, don't do any post-processing, because it's an abomination. And cheating.
...it's an abomination. And cheating.
Heh. Yes, well, on those accolades, I could run for office.
Do I add contacts with "invite" or some other way? Is there an easy way to reciprocate when someone adds me?
I used to be a purist until I read comments from some of the more famous photographers who said that photography only begins in the camera. It's the darkroom where the real magic takes place and they advocated using the tools at hand to make the art that was wanted.
The big Ansel Adams exhibit at SFMOMA a few years ago really emphasized this; it included a number of photos Adams had printed repeatedly at different points in his life and career, particularly (IIRC) the Snake River with the Tetons in the background. The changes different printing decisions made were really striking. (Unfortunately, the curator seemed to have it in for Adams, so the exhibition was overall much less enjoyable than it could have been.)
51: Go to the person's photo page, click to the right of their buddy icon and you'll get a drop-down. Choose "Add XXX as a contact?"
52: I saw an Ansel Adams at the Bellagio in Vegas and it was amazing. He's probably more of an inspiration to me than any other photographer.
Ansel Adams exhibit at SFMOMA a few years ago really emphasized this
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought of when I read Dawn's comment.
Ogged: Click on the user, click on "profile", then click on "Add user as a contact" (or whatever it says) on the right-hand side.
So there's no way to add everyone in a group as a contact?
Everybody catch the photo of Standpipe on Populuxe's page?
That's me, btw, he said disambiguously.
So there's no way to add everyone in a group as a contact?
I don't think so. I've never seen that option.
57 -- Thanks!
Might I suggest a link to the Unfogged Flicker group as a good candidate for inclusion in the Unfogged blogroll? B-Wo could pitch in with some clever mouseover text.
Personally, I don't do any post processing. Or not much. So if the sky looks all black with white clouds, it's 'cos it was shot through a red filter. Rather than because it was converted from colour.
Although one thing I have done once or twice is scanned black and white film as colour -- which can add a wierd colour cast to the image.
I have no problems with other people working that way -- the results can be great as Dawn's photos show -- but it's not really for me, it does feel a bit too much like 'cheating' to me (for my own photos, not other peoples). At the moment anyway, I may have a massive change of heart later.
For a moment, the only options for admitting Ogged were "Delete" and "Decline".
Now, does everyone know how to add a photo to the group pool? Click on any photo you've uploaded, then click on the "Send to Group" button above the photo. I'm sure there's a way to do this when uploading photos to Flickr, too.
But what sort of photos belong in the Unfogged pool?
But what sort of photos belong in the Unfogged pool?
Obviously, pictures of scruffy faceless gentlemen making questionable fashion choices.
Love the Utah pics.
Thanks. That was one seriously spectacular setting for a wedding. That night, we all pitched tents and slept on the bluff, and woke up for brunch right there the next morning. Man, that was gorgeous.
but it's not really for me, it does feel a bit too much like 'cheating' to me
You know, I went through that as well. I spent a lot of time focusing on not processing. It helped me grow as a photographer. I spent a lot more time on composition and lighting. Now, for the most part, those come more naturally to me. So I can now focus more on getting the exact feel from processing that I felt when I took the shot.
Also, I don't consider my photography photo-journalistic. I look at it as more of an expression of art. If it were photo-journalistic in nature, I wouldn't do any processing at all, aside from cropping.
64 -- "on the bluff" s/b "in the buff".
Utah is the most beautiful place on earth.
Utah is the most beautiful place on earth
Lovely wildlife, too.
I tend not to go in for cropping, even.* I'm not a total purist about it -- it's not Cartier-Bresson style 'decisive moment' stuff -- but generally, I try to present the image pretty much 'as is'. I don't use flash either, for that matter.
Obviously there's still artifice involved, there's no intention of 'authenticity' or anything -- but the aesthetic experience of actually taking the picture, for me, is improved if I place certain limits on the process.
It may also be informed by the fact that the photographers I actually like tend to be photo-journalistic or fashion photographers who adopt a pseudo-journalistic style.
* that's something I really do need to do more of, actually. So that's a descriptive rather than normative statement. I tend not to crop, but that's not to say that I should't.
ttaM, what focal length do you usually use?
Dawn's Arizona pics are great too.
Thank you. It's a great place to be for photography.
Matt, one of the things that I talk about with photography friends is how all photography is manipulated in some way. You choose what will go in the frame. You choose what to leave out. The angles, the lighting, the choice of subject are all manipulations on reality.
We all do it (and photo-journalists/fashion photogs are some of the best at doing this). It's just different degrees of that.
re: 72
I tend, mostly, to use 'normal' lenses - 50mm (ish) on 35mm and 80mm (ish) in medium format. I use 85mm lenses on 35mm a fair bit too. I've never really gotten into lenses wider than 35 - 40mm, though. It just doesn't work for me even though i love what other people do with them.
re: 73
Sure, all photos are manipulated. Even the choice of developer and the type of film you choose makes a difference. And black and white is artificial in itself, after all. No-one takes 'authentic' photos. But we can choose what we do to them, and different people make different choices. For me, personally, I prefer to do less to them. Other people do more -- and take great photos.
re: 74
I agree. We all do different levels of it. I've done less. I do more. I'm by not means someone who does a huge amount (case in point, the HDR photographers).
BTW, your Mjelnik (3) photograph is wonderful. I love the arches. I also like the photos of the people (not something I do much of because I'm not as comfortable in that area). Your photos are quite lovely.
Thanks (re: Mjelnik photo)
Yeah, the HDR thing generally does nothing for me at all.
But I have seen some quite heavily manipulated long exposure night photos that adopt some of that sort of methodology which I've liked a lot. Thre's also a super-saturated look to some digital photos (and cross-processed slide stuff, too) that I sometimes really like.
Grain is more attractive than noise, which sometimes has a pattern to it that interrupts the image—that's about the only aspect of the digital versus film debate I'll weigh in on. Pre-process manipulation versus post-process manipulation is a debate that didn't start with Photoshop and just won't vanish already.
Aw crap, I'm going to have to leave the Unfogged group, since it shows up on my profile. Unless we can rename it?
'The perfectly normal and extremely dull group that [Ogged's real name] belongs to for no reason that would interest his real life acquaintances'?
It says "Public groups" -- this implies to me that you can join a group privately and have it not show on your profile. But I am as pointed out elsewhere a rank n00b.
I think "public" is the status of the group, not the status of my relation to it.
Looks like Smasher could switch it to a private group.
You can make groups private and they only show up to the actual people in them (even though you'll see it on your profile, no one else can).
Any drawbacks to making the group private? Once the decision is made, it's irrevocable. I don't see this as a problem, since we don't want people wondering in from Flickr anyway. But am I overlooking anything?
No one ever said we weren't insular and self-referential.
90: The upshot of this is that I can't view the page, since I'm not a member of the group. Can you make me one? I have a Flicker account but not photos in it yet. I guess this puts the kibosh on my "link the group from Unfogged's sidebar" idea.
(I am "The Modesto Kid" in Flicker.)
This private Flickr thing is the Unfogged event horizon. From a distance, your personae, suspended, stretch like taffy to an infinitesimal point, after which nothing.
Shall I email you Armsmasher, to join the group? I don't have any photos on Flickr (because I live with a Dawn-a-like who takes every photo I could possibly want for me), but I do have an account (asilon again).
And I'd like to be be nosy and see everyone's stuff.
I'm certain the Democrats could craft a coherent and effective political message, if only they had a private Flickr group.
Anyone who wants in, e-mail me with Flickr links or e-mail addresses. Anyone who joins the group needs to be a contact of the admin (me).
I can grant admin status to one of the Unfogged posters (to anyone, really) if someone wants to add an item ot the sidebar or what have you. I figure that since new commenters are required to read every thread, eventually they'll read this one, at which point they can e-mail me.
Rahm Emmanuel, show us your tits! But not just any of us.
You can see how this would lead to victory at the polls.
Yeah, I don't have any photos on flickr, but I asked to join the public group anyway so that I could have my name on there. I'm glad I did it, since we've been privatized.
You know, we could have just renamed the thing.
If you don't have a flickr account already, you can use a yahoo e-mail address to create one very easily.
Flickr is currentl experiencing technical difficulties, but instead of saying that the error message reads, "Flickr has the hiccups."
There are only so many good names on the tip of one's tongue. I mean, not everyone can come up with "cadu\cosity."
Keep in mind, unFlickr people, that clicking on, for example, cadu\cosity's contacts, is effectively the same as seeing the private unfogged group. Making it private just keeps the name out of the profiles of the group members.
In order to join the Flickr group, you need to accept me into your life as your personal Lord and Savior. You can do so by adding me as a "Contact".
109 - Just who do you think you are? Stephen Baldwin?
Woo hoo! I even gave myself a "Buddy" icon! Next stop, the Buddy Booths ATM. (Hey 'Smasher, you're the sculpture maven -- do you recognize my icon?)
But, Clownęsthesiologist that's such a little icon. I thought it was bigger than that.
Well you know, images can be deceiving as to size.
Here is a larger version, still on my own web site, and a long view -- there are a whole lot of photos at my Flickr account now but with no particular organization -- I was sort of assuming I could upload them and then organize them at my leisure but I think it makes more sense to do the organization first. Hmm. Well I'll leave that for another time, at any rate there is lots of fun stuff there willy-nilly.
Hey! How did you upload so many photos without maxing out your monthly quota? (Also: You have a workshop? I'm so envious.)
I uploaded 20 meg, my monthly quota. No more uploads til November. Having a workshop was one of the primary allures of moving out of the city for me.
(Actually come to think of it, the workshop which you see pictured was in the second bedroom of our apartment in Queens and a source of strife between us and our downstairs neighbors. The current one is bigger and a little better-equipped.)
How does one change the order of one's photostream?
I uploaded my monthly quota and only got about 50 pictures up. Did you compress yours, Clownae? (Apo, I don't know the answer to your question, but I agree that in your child's pudding-fest, the order is important.)
I don't know anything about jpg technology -- I just scan them in with the default compression on my scanner and they come out about 30-50K apiece. So say 20 of them in a M, 400 of them in a monthly upload quota. (I am underestimating a bit on the size, I hit my quota with about 350 photos. Also this means not all my photos are visible to you Flickerers because I am only allowed to have 200 visible at a time.)
Like here's something I don't get: I uploaded this photo of my ancestors to Flicker and the result is here -- rather smaller I think you'll agree. What gives?
Flickr does a lot of automatic resizing.
My photos are more like 200 K each. Hmm, maybe I don't need all that resolution, seeing as though I can't ever get the light to work probably anyway. I guess I've solved the mystery of why you could upload so many more pictures than I could.
One of the perks of the Pro account is that it lets you keep photos around at larger than the "large" size. See here.
Okay, you reorder the photostream by changing the posted date/times to reverse of the order you desire. It isn't a convenient process.
121: I see it gives you the option to download the larger size. This is so tourists don't get discouraged waiting through long downloads and click away from flickr, I think.
Clownae, you got a lot of ancestors there.
Yeah, I hit my upload quota right quick when I started using Flickr, so I sprang (sprung?) for the Pro account.
Yeah, splashing out for the pro option is a good idea if you upload a lot. Gives the option of uploading larger images, even if people never actually look at them.
126 -- Yeah but that photo is most all the record I have of them. Dig the moustaches. (My dad has more info about some of them and I keep meaning to get some of it from him; but I am lazy.)
Apo: Try the batch organize function. You can change dates for several photos and (IIRC) move them around to change their order.
Smasher, I just saw a picture of Ackerman, via Yglesias. When did facial hair start being cool, and when is it going to stop? And is the Gen Awe-wide, or just DC-wonk types?
(Yes, I'm genuinely troubled by this. I have 70s issues.)
I am older than Smasher, Ackerman, or Yglesias, and I like facial hair.
My wife asked for facial hair, almost first thing. I've trimmed mine down now to almost-not, but it remains as a talisman. The night of our first date is the last time I shaved full face.
I used to be anti-facial hair but I'm starting to change my mind on that. Worn well, it can look good.
I used to be anti-facial hair but I'm starting to change my mind on that. Worn well, it can look good.
Then I blame you for all of this, and ruin that is sure to follow.
My wife prefers me with some facial hair.
At the moment I have a couple of weeks worth of full beard but, as per previous facial-hair conversations, I'll be shaving it back to just a bit of chin fuzz + 'patch' as it's too dammed itchy.
I bet there's a correlation between the acceptability of facial hair and the likelihood that we'll invade another country "just 'cause."
138 - John says "I don't think so".
There is a loose beard/revolutionary leader/radical correlation though...
I've never seen my husband's chin. But he has a non-trendy, weirdo-Civil-War-era kind of goatee, which I like much better than anything fashionable.
I'm clean shaven these days.
The beards my roommates sport don't qualify as trendy beards, since the roommates trim theirs close. So there's a hip thing going and there's also a DC wonk thing going. Yeah, SCMT, beards.
136 - It's the "Worn well, it can look good" that can getcha. Some people misjudge whether they wear it well.
"Style has separated itself from viewpoint," said Tim Harrington, the lead singer of the rock band Les Savy Fav, who is known for his full beard and balding head. "This is not like when beards were worn by hippies. Now you pick a style for aesthetic reasons as opposed to a viewpoint. I wonder if beards can have the oomph they once had when it feels like someone will ask you: 'Where did you get that beard? Is that beard from Dolce & Gabbana?'"
Also, one of the data points that turned me pro-beard was discovering that some beards are non-scratchy. Most of my beard experience in the past came from Mark**, who has a very scratchy beard. A shame because it's a cute beard, but it makes me skin hurt just thinking about it.
** There's a joke in there screaming to come out.
There's a joke in there screaming to come out.
I thought he was already bah more coffee.
I'm clean shaven these days.
An apostle for shaving, at last! I now feel better about the future of our country.
Also, one of the data points that turned me pro-beard was discovering that some beards are non-scratchy.
You know what else is often non-scratchy? Skin.
Most of my beard experience in the past came from Mark**, who has a very scratchy beard.
I'm not sure it's really appropriate for you to appropriate the Right Wing "Blame Teh Gays" rhetoric, Becks.
You guys are misspelling baa's handle.
If we get SCMT really bent out of shape I bet we can get him to use "appropriate" three times in a single sentence.
I was pleasantly surprised, when my beard grew out this summer, to find that it didn't itch. But I still shaved it off, because I believe in civilization.
Actually skin mit stubble is often scratchier than a beard.
I've had a beard for years, but it's a dad beard, not some hipster doofus beard.
But I still shaved it off, because I believe in civilization.
Thank you. See, even the Iranians have come to terms with this basic fact.
Actually skin mit stubble is often scratchier than a beard.
Stubble is a beard. A vestigial beard, but still a beard. It counts against the other guys.
I have 70s issues
You'd love the tobacco shop nearest my house--the guy is full-on 70s flashback: full beard, blow-dried hair, unbuttoned shirt, chest rug. *And* the last time I was in there he was playing Barry White over the sound system.
I can't decide if it's hilarious and I should go there all the time, or if it's scary and I should avoid it like the plague.
Actually skin mit stubble is often scratchier than a beard
I have sandpaper on my face 5 minutes after shaving. Going beardless is not the way to unscratchyness for me.
I'm thinking of growing a beard, as it would do a nice job of covering my double chin.
My boyfriend keeps his stubble about a quarter-half inch long to reduce the scratchy stubble problem. Looks fine to me.
My boyfriend keeps his stubble about a quarter-half inch long
A technique he calls "growing a beard". Nice try, B.
I was just wondering if I should retreat back to just a goatee or not.
No, definitely not a beard. Carefully maintained half-growth, designed as a compromise between two competing aesthetic preferences: clean shavenness vs. women without red stubble burn.
162 -- you misspelled "goatse".
clean shavenness vs. women without red stubble burn.
Actually, clean-shavenness accomplishes both of those, so I don't see how managed stubble is a compromise between.
The thought was prompted by finding this picture, which was originally elsewhere on flickr but I can't find it anymore.
163/165- not to mention that "managed stubble" is the prickliest. Clean-shaven or beards-grown-full-enough-to-soften can both be used to avoid red stubble burn, but "managed stubble" is inavoidably coarse. Not only is it still short enough to be naturally rough, but then you regularly sharpen it by cutting it with a trimmer.
B- perhaps your boyfriend just has naturally soft, non-irritating facial hair, but do not be deceived: far from a 'compromise', he has chosen the prickliest possible facial hairstyle.
You can even use conditioner on a beard for further softening power.
