Steve_De4

Well, Mr Boot, I'd hardly be saying you could do so if you couldn't. At the page I linked to, click on the link on the left that is highlighted red to go to the motorways page. next to the dropdown menu that lists the motorways is a bunch of boxes you can tick. At the bottom of that bunch of tickboxes, is one for cameras. Click that box and make sure there's a tick in it, select your motorway, and away you go. There will be little camera icon next to the motorway graphic. PS, any Wiltshire people lurking in this thread because of lack of snow in Wiltshire might like to know.... .... it's snowing in Wiltshire

Oh, ah, urk, what a berk. I've been so busy looking at the M25 webcams, where it is ^really^ snowing I haven't looked out my window for a while. It is snowing. Not too hard, but the ground is white. How long has this been going on for? :lol:

For the snow starved in other areas visting this thread (like me!) I can highly recommend the snow entertainment that is traffic webcams at http://www.trafficengland.com/TCC/. Click the link to view motorways on the left, then select something like the M25, the M23 or the M20, remember to tick for webcams in the checkboxes, and away you go. Last time I looked, the M25 was getting a pasting somewhere around J9. Look for where the traffic is moving slowly :lol:

Let's hear it for the bridge-cams, the prosumers, the.. errr: The utterly lovely Sony R1. Went off the idea of interchangeable lenses (I'm a sucker for lens lust), so went for the best bridge-cam of the time. Also use the cam in my mobile.

It's in my nature, I'm afraid While that might be true, and thus it might follow that responses are to the person rather than the photo, it might be that the nature of the photo and the nature of the person are inextricably bound. All the photo threads I've jumped around in the last half an hour generally say "great photo X" whoever the photographer and whatever the number of responses. This isn't just a NW phenomenon - even the mighty DPReview forums have their favourites around whom responses cluster. ah, but one man's out of focus is another man's "soft focus" or "creative blur" And "poorly composed" is so photographer-speak it would disbar the non-photographers. All I'm saying is - be careful what you wish for. Cheers!

Hi, While I'm in general agreement with the tenor of your argument, it does make the presumption that people known "why" they like a photograph, or series of photographs beyond some emotional response. It tends to be the more serious photographers who would be able to comment about "why" they like a shot (commenting, say, on proportion, balance, exposure, lighting, what have you), which would disbar those who don't have that understanding of technique from just going with their gut reaction. I'm also sure, although I have little empirical evidence to back this notion up, that the photographs in threads like these are not studied, they are glanced at and then "praised" or not on the basis of that glance. The more serious photographers might spend more time studying the photographs, but then what? I know I study the photographs, certainly in the competition, and would have things to say. But part of the problem would be that I'd be speaking into a vacuum - i.e, I wouldn't know how seriously the photographer would want my comments. Most photographers are snapshooters, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if a photograph was a snapshot, and the photographer was proud of that photo, and not necessarily looking for analysis/criticism, would my criticism be of any use? In fact, would it not seem as though such an analysis or criticism was curmudgeonly? If the photographer didn't want, nor expect, any comment/criticism/analysis except validation that the photo they had fallen in love with was groovy, wouldn't they, probably, be miffed? Isn't one of the problems with a forum such as this that we encourage photos to be displayed and shared without knowing how the photographer would feel about criticism, or even if s/he wants criticism? And by the same token, doesn't public display encourage in respondents a variety of responses, some of which will be analytical and others purely immediate and emotional? And, in general, aren't the critical ones actually going to avoid comments because it could possibly be grit in the well-greased machine of a smoothly running forum? The obvious solution would be to have two topics, one for those photographers who don't mind an ear-bashing, and one for those who just want to display a picture. And then you can decide which to read, and where to put pictures. Of course, the "serious photographers" topic could be deemed elitist, but... Just my 10 shillings and tuppence worth....

I'm not sure what that means. It's a photo. It's not of the scene that was there at the time, sure enough, but it's still a photo. Does it become a bad photo just because it not "naturalistic", because it's not a "true rendition of nature"? Are photographers who do use photoshop therefore "not as good" as those who take naturalistic scenes? But if that were true, then surely using scene modes and letting the camera take care of "all the work" to create a "naturalistic scene" is also "bad". And if the camera makes adjustments automatically to the tones/contrast/sharpness, is that bad? And what does "pass it off as one mean"? If you were to ask me "did I photoshop my landscape", I'd say yes - because I do raw photography. But it would still be a landscape. It would still be representation of that landscape. If I was invited to a competition where I could only take non-photoshopped photos, then I wouldn't pass it off as a non-photoshopped photo - but then it would have to be a jpeg, and then the camera would have done various tone/sharpening/contrast enhancements in-camera for me. For example, this is photoshopped because it was raw. Is it a true representation of the scene that was there in terms of colours? Gawd knows. I'd forgotten by the time I got home. The photograph has become my only memory of that scene, it is the only re-presentation. Is it bad that I can't remember if this is a true representation? If the blue is now bluer, or the green is now greener, than it was at the moment I clicked the button, is that bad? Should I say underneath this photo "this is photoshopped and not as good as other photos"? Is this photo a lie? Should I never display it? Should I sheepishly admit that, "well, it's okay, but it's been photoshopped?" Are the only good photos those that represent something as it could naturally be seen? Cheers SteveDe

Well, I think Kelly knows what my answer will be. Firstly, if you are using the jpeg setting on your camera, the camera is already doing a lot of in camera "photoshopping" for you - setting the sharpness, the colour balance, the white balance, the temperature, the contrast, etc. So in fact your photos are postprocessed from the moment the tiny chip captures the raw, does its business and squashes it into a jpeg. Secondly, if you use any of the auto scene modes on the camera, again, the camera will do a lot of internal work. Thirdly, if you shoot raw like I do, the chances are by the time you get home you won't remember what the scene actually looked like, and so will create something pleasing to the eye. Fourthly, all images need sharpening for a start, which is normally done by an algorithm in the camera (they need sharpening because of the filters used in camera). At what point can you agree that the sharpening provided by a programmer in Japan is absolutely the right level of sharpening you want? Different cameras produce different sharpening/tones/contrast, so if I took a pic with my Sony and Kelly with her Canon, and the tones were different, which would be true, and how would we conclude that that is so? I've never used a camera yet that faithfully reproduces what I see with my eye, even going back to my Practika film camera. And my eye will be different to your eye, so again, how can I know that when you look at my Sony LCD and I look at your Canon LCD which one will be representing the "true" colours? Fifthly, in the film days, all photos were postprocessed. IF you were lucky, by a professional in a shop, most often automatically by a machine at Truprint (which needed constant recalibration. Were the colours truer at the start of the run, or at the end of the run?) I prefer to develop my own raw into a picture that pleases me. Sixthly, if you want the camera to only naturally render a memory of a particular scene, fine. Seventhly, if you want to create photoshopped stuff, fine. I like to process my own raw files (just like using a darkroom but less stinky) into something that pleases my eye. If that's "unnatural" (that is, not somehow a "true" resemblance to a half remembered scene) then so be it. I think I've rambled enough

Non Weather BK N1 GB N1 MPR N1 SW N1 KF N1

Weather 03JT 1 DR 3 FK 1 FR52 1 SQ1 1

Still possibly not too late: WIBS N2 WIBS N3 Filski N2 Blackie N1 Slinky N3

Possibly not too late... Weather: BE 1 WIBS2 OON3 RL 2 RL 1

Thanks. As a smoker, the chimeny reminds me of me Mind you, look in the Westbury group on Flickr - there's a lot of people who are attracted to...

As it's still open, I'll enter, but there's fandabadozy pix on this thread this month; nonetheless: Weather 1 Weather 2 and those two pix just about sum up October's weather in Wiltshire, so i'll move swiftly on Non-weather 1 Non-weather 2 Non-weather 3

Votes: Weather Slinky 1 MAM 2 MAM 1 JC 2 JC 3 Non-Weather Blackie N1 Filski N3 JC N1 Slinky N1 ZH N3

thank you... (not that it'll make much difference, but...)

And I would like to second Blackie's comment... ... before noting that my pix are in the wrong categories... The three weather pix are in the Non-weather, and the two non-weather in the weather. As they all seem to involve sunsets or completely blue skies, I understand the confusion...

Oh, have some sunshine August Sunshine Fluffy August Clouds A Mostly Empty August Sky Fascinating photo - is it HDR? Or just naturally those colours?

Thanks - quite partial to the ISS one myself. That is nicely timed - makes the plane look huge!

Non-weather Cradle Hill at Twilight There are People Up There - The ISS Curves Across the White Horse No weather happened in Wiltshire, so I have no photos

Weather PhilB 1 PhilB 2 OON 2 MAM 1 Essan 2 Non-Weather BL N2 Blackie N1 Essan N1 Slinky N1 Slinky N2

Yeh, but if everybody did that, there would be no shortlist! :unsure: (excuse emoticon, just wanted to put something ridiculous in)

No, from my landing window :lol: It's roughly the same direction. I'm pretty sure now that the lights are Southwick, and then towards Bradford in the distance. It's part of an ongoing series where, when I haven't got time to go out but the sky is looking nice, I photograph whatever I see from wherever I am

Two non-weather pics: