Seonaid

Well, the only results for my full name are me, which is to be expected really. But my first name is shared by the first computer generated television present, lol.

Well I don’t know what it is like in America but 999 (the equivalent service) is one of the few numbers you can dial free from your mobile. So I would certainly call well before I would bother to text (that said…my texting ability is abominably slow).As far as having an emergency message I had this really great service at my old work. As we had to walk alone through rather dodgy areas of Glasgow they gave you a mobile with a GPS tracker, you would enter codes before you went through the area, like 401 or something and then again when you left, if you phoned or typed in another code during this period they would alert the police. I can’t quite remember the entire process as I fortunately never had to use it, but I remember that it did eliminate any fears.

Hey all, Am quite new but I just thought it would be really interesting to know what creative things people have done digitally with photographs and to throw up the question that is the digital revolution a good thing, and add to the creative possibilities of photography or does it take away from the skill and expertise of what photography was, say 30 years ago.What do you all think?

Yes, i have to agree with Cassandra, I don't think amateur means bad. I consider my work amateur and if I posted a pic asking you all to say what they think I would certainly not want people refraining from any criticism because I'm an amateur. These are pictures that you could perhaps positively pass comment on, but it would be not for their photographic merits. That said, I don't actually believe that was the purpose of them when took. I think the reason why it was said they were touristy is because they look like fun snapshots taken while on holiday. Perhaps they have memories, or perhaps they are just particularly flattering, either way, but these aren't things that we (we being the collective people of a photography forum) can pass comment on, especially as light of the fact that Lilmizkat did not give any background behind the pics. I definitely agree that Photoshop filters have been used and abused. THAT SAID, i don't think you can completely disregard any form of post production on a photograph. I mean, when done well you don't even notice. Obviously the best thing is to try and do it right when you take the photograph. But I definitely digitally alter photographs to compensate for lack of features on my current digital camera. When I get enough money I am certainly buying a digital SLR (I have my greedy eyes set on a Nikon D200) but until then...the only option of depth of field is through Photoshop. Not the best...but it does suffice. There are many other things you can do in post that are really creative and interesting things you can do in post-production and I don't believe you can complete discount using any of these, especially in lieu of all the many possibilities the digital revolution has enabled. Actually, that would make quite a good thread topic...What are the creative possibilities of digital alteration, what are examples that people have done in post that are effective but don't go over the top. I think that is key, not to go over the top. Filters are something that I think are quite addictive when you first start to use photo programs. Or maybe that was just me but either way, they can be used to create a desired effect. Halftone can be used to create a comic book or newsprint effect...like the covers of those old pulp fictions. Or diffuse glow can be used to give things a very ghost like effect. I am unsure what effect the filter Lilmizkat used on that photo (like paint daubs or something??) has, perhaps it wasn't best for that photo. I don't know, I'm honestly struggling to think of a photograph where that filter would be particularly appropriate. I must say, I'm not terribly fond of filters. It's not...really...art. I guess you're just telling the program to do it for you. I think when you alter areas personally the results are more interesting, and definitely more original. But I definitely agree with Bangalore that composition is extremely important. Ultimately, whether or not you use a compact digital camera or not, the composition is what makes it good. I actually think the composition of the first photograph is good, and quite nicely follows from what Bangalore suggested, that a subject placed in the centre conveys balance, something pleasant and not threatening. The composition of the other two are not as good, both needing to be cropped. The 2nd one cropped at the bottom, and the 3rd definitely having to much space at the top, as well as the sides to be honest. It's also not very good that the shadow falls directly over her face. Anyway, that's my two cents

Ok, I must precede this by saying I'm quite critical, so please feel free to completely ignore me. First impressions, I don't like it. I mean, it's not bad, but it just somehow seems dated, or like the old BBC logo thing. But, that could be what you're looking for, an reworking of somethings 80's-esque It's ok, the composistion is quite good but the background is a little bit too busy for the smaller writing, even though it is white. That said, it is quite a small pic. Ok, there is something not quite right about this, the image and the font and everything are very nice, but it's where the text is situated, it's not that it neccessarily needs to be in the centre of the image, but something about where it is situated right now is too bottom heavy, there needs to be something offsetting it to the top to have the text here. I must say, I quite like this one, it's a clean looking and the image draws the eye in, while being framed by the information. very effective. This is quite good, i like the green that meets the end of the main logo. However, I don't really like the font for the website. I don't know if it's because it's too tall or what, but it detracts from the rest. Anyway, like I say...just my thoughts. Overall they seem like they would be quite suitable, i'm just nitpicking really.

I suppose it depends on how important portability is to you. I absolutely love the fact that I can shove my laptop in my bag and head down to the library to do research. All my stuff is there, i don't need to wait to get onto a computer, or log into a computer that doesn't neccessarily the programs or data I need. It's also fabulous for taking back home with me to visit the family. But I move about a lot, and I don't use my laptop for gaming or anything that taxes the memory too much. So obviously it's suited to me. The battery thing is annoying, however, I find most places have plug in points (including the train home) so I can still use it. I can't operate without a mouse...but afterall, it's easy enough to take one with you! But portability and space are really the only two advantages. You have to consider how important these are to you. If they aren't absolutely essential then go for a desktop, it just makes more sense.

It was the same for my mum, she point blank refused to change from dial up (even though it was much more expensive than broadband (because she was paying by minute and for an extra line) until the company she was with went purely broadband and she was forced off of it, lol. Not that she really uses it anyway.

I'm sorry, but I find this clip hilarious. While I appreciate your very noble sentiment I just don't know how practical it is. I'm not saying that we should ignore the more serious element here, but equally I don't think we should stifle the more light hearted side. When you live in a city it is something that you see every day, and I suppose you do get used to it. keep in mind that these are people that harass and scare you. I think laughing (though not at the time...could possibly get yourself hurt that way) is a healthy reaction. For instance, one time when i was a teenager, some drugged out crazy lady just walked up to me at the metro platform and just started screaming in my face, I was in Paris at the time and as i only have a limited grasp of french I have absolutely no idea what she was on about. I have to say that I was terrified. I certainly didn't laugh at the time, but looking back I can see a lighter side to it. I don't think there is anything wrong with laughing at people's oddities, provided you can do the same with your own.

You know, i remember when I was an undergrad I called getty images plc in london to ask if for a student project I could use some of their images and the girl was really rude to me. but i'm not bitter It is a pretty comprehensive site though, and some of their collections are truly stunning.