If anyone is interested in links

Last year during the flame wars of the year, fought in this very group, a
strange thing occurred about two of my web sites. Their Goggle page rank
rose out of proportion to most of my other sites.

This happened because of prolific inclusions in replies of my signature
which had those very sites in it. I don't know the stats but just about
every "forum" on photography includes the posts, including such notable
sites as "Toms Hardware". When you magnify out the effect, maybe a few
thousand - what Goggle term "High quality" external links to my sites were
responsible for their popularity. Even today, my photo site is still in the
top 15 site when searching with it's keywords.

Without actually knowing it, the image thief from AU and his mate, the 44
year old donut eating backwards (should that be backwoods?) boy from
Tennessee, did me a huge favour and boosted my business in measurable ways
every time they passed their opinion on the often set up and sometimes
purposely altered photos I linked to. Like the man said: "Any publicity is
better than no publicity". I can't wait to hear more from these site
promoters.

So here we are again. Maybe I should have used some Pelicans caught with
"inappropriate use of flash" but then if it's going to get linked to, I
might as well get some mileage from it, eh?

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cover-pic.htm

--
Wedding Photography anywhere between Coffs Harbour NSW and Rainbow Beach
Qld.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas
http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com

Nice Site...

Having never seen this particular term before, what are the Austrailian
legalities behind being able to call yourself "Indentured Tradesman?"
Is this similar to being "Licensed, Bonded and Insured" here in the USA?

I was just curious...

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ USA
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

An Indentured Tradesman is a person who (more years ago than I care to
remember) was bonded by Government contract as an apprentice to stay
employed with a particular Employer until at year 5, the apprentice was
granted "Indentures" and could legally represent himself as a Tradesman. I
have the indentures framed and on display in my office... For what they are
worth!

Today, AIPP. Probably the peak organisation of Professional Photographers in
Australia, told me last year this did not qualify a person for membership of
their association. They require members to have taken a course in
Photography at nominated learning institutes... One of which I attended
during my apprenticeship but in the 1960's Photography was a trade, not a
profession like it is today. Funny... The dictionary terms "Professional" as
someone who charges a fee or earns a living from an occupation.

Douglas
--
Wedding Photography anywhere between Coffs Harbour NSW and Rainbow Beach
Qld.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas
http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com


"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
...
: Nice Site...
:
: Having never seen this particular term before, what are the Austrailian
: legalities behind being able to call yourself "Indentured Tradesman?"
: Is this similar to being "Licensed, Bonded and Insured" here in the USA?
:
: I was just curious...
:
: Jay Beckman
: Chandler, AZ USA
: www.pbase.com/flyingphotog
:
:
:

"Douglas" wrote in message
...
An Indentured Tradesman is a person who (more years ago than I care to
remember) was bonded by Government contract as an apprentice to stay
employed with a particular Employer until at year 5, the apprentice was
granted "Indentures" and could legally represent himself as a Tradesman. I
have the indentures framed and on display in my office... For what they
are
worth!

Today, AIPP. Probably the peak organisation of Professional Photographers
in
Australia, told me last year this did not qualify a person for membership
of
their association. They require members to have taken a course in
Photography at nominated learning institutes... One of which I attended
during my apprenticeship but in the 1960's Photography was a trade, not a
profession like it is today. Funny... The dictionary terms "Professional"
as
someone who charges a fee or earns a living from an occupation.

Douglas

Thanks for the explanation...very interesting!

Jay

Douglas wrote:
Without actually knowing it, the image thief from AU
That's probably me. Douglas should either prove I "thieved" his images
by any sensible definition, or he should refrain from using those
terms. He seems to say I helped his business, so I should be on
commission, I think.

(For anyone who cares, for the record (and at the risk of annoying
people who have heard it all so many times before), I REPOSTED
web-sized images, with full accreditation, that Douglas had withdrawn
after they were criticised. Douglas thinks that is 'thieving'. If so,
he should have Google's caching system arrested, along with the Wayback
Machine (www.archive.org) and anyone else who even visits his links, as
they have cached his images too. Just remember - *I* didn't bring this
back up..)

So here we are again. Maybe I should have used some Pelicans caught with
"inappropriate use of flash" but then if it's going to get linked to, I
might as well get some mileage from it, eh?

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cover-pic.htm

Yep, any publicity... I'm glad Douglas picked this one - it's one of my
faves. I'm sure all the good things about the image are perfectly
obvious, so I shall just concentrate on the rest.

1. Pose? - Ouch. Where did his leg go? (yes, I know, but at first
glance this looks really odd (O. Awkward hands (doesn't he know how
to get people to clasp hands 'romantically'? - this is really basic
stuff). And that upper hand should not have been there. What's with
the squashed upper lip? - how long had they been frozen in that pose, I
wonder? As an aside, I would have been tempted to shoot this the other
way around, him on the right so that he would have better blocked the
sunlight - but depending on the wind etc, that may not have been
possible, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt..

2. Composition? - Unbalanced. A better image would have resulted imo if
Douglas had been about one foot to the right and shooting a little more
along the jetty. This would have removed the distracting bit of
shoreline above the rail, and it would have allowed the groom to be
further from the frame edge to help balance the shot.

3. Editing - he could have removed that shoreline above the rail, the
seagull poop, and the annoying sunray that looks like another gull got
him on the arm....

4. Exposure - credit where due, he held the highlights in the white
dress acceptably, but lost his hair... (wait for the inevitable JPG
quality comment, Douglas doesn't think you can do much with
web-displayed images... to prove him wrong, it looks like the the
detail *is/was* actually there, he has just overdone the contrast to
the point it is invisible on a properly adjusted screen)

5. Colour - not bad at all - but is it me, or is there just a hint too
much green/cyan..?

Other than that - excellent!

By the way, this is how he markets his business:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Wedding-Photo...QQcmdZViewItem
or
http://tinyurl.com/y4pz7t

I'm happy to help with the publicity!!! (O;

http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Tip - the GIF (!!!) montage at top of page looks *horrible*. And yet
here, Douglas uses a much better JPG:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/packages.htm
Sack that webpage designer/maintainer!

Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas
http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com
Douglas might want to fix up the broken links on the second one - where
is the 'Gallery', and why has he removed the enlarging page, given that
is what he is promoting?


It's 'interesting' to have Douglas back - the place was getting a bit
boring... But a couple of questions:
- has he returned to film again, or was it digital's turn to make a
comeback this time? I can't keep up - he dumped film, then he dumped
digital, then..
- does he still have that medium-format-equivalent FZ20? (O;

The comment about the 'indentured tradesman' is interesting. Douglas
also claims he is:
"Internationally recognized Photographic Master. (World Institute of
Photographic masters (sic))"
Yes, $35 pa, and you *too* can be one of those. Nothing else, not even
a recommendation from another member or proof that you run a
photography business.. The WIPM will love you for it, I can assure
you! The only reason I don't do it is that I am concerned about
becoming a Master overnight - would it affect my personality?


By the way, I just love the new name, "Douglas St James-macdonald".
(Yes, that is how *he* capitalises it on his contacts page..)

wrote:

- has he returned to film again, or was it digital's turn to make a
comeback this time?

If you compare images "group-pier-2" and "group-pier-3" from "The Ball
Family" gallery, a couple of large spots of what appears to be sensor dust
are clearly visible in the sky. I would think that these photos, at least,
must have been taken with a digital; probably a dSLR if that is really
sensor dust.

Mardon wrote:
wrote:

- has he returned to film again, or was it digital's turn to make a
comeback this time?

If you compare images "group-pier-2" and "group-pier-3" from "The Ball
Family" gallery, a couple of large spots of what appears to be sensor dust
are clearly visible in the sky. I would think that these photos, at least,
must have been taken with a digital; probably a dSLR if that is really
sensor dust.

Eg:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html

Yes, I see what you mean - although given the JPG artefacts (look
around their heads!) it's hard to know what you are looking at! (Hint
to Douglas, even if web space is limited, it doesn't pay to drop below
about 80% quality if you are trying to market the quality of your
photography)

And I'll grant that the image is a bit small to tell for sure, but in
both those shots it looks like he has neatly managed to focus on the
cleverly positioned foreground tree, rather than the subject... Is
there no end to Douglas' creative talents? - I would never have thought
of trying that.. Sigh.

On a similar note:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html
Given this was probably shot with a DSLR, in bright sunlight, how
(..more importantly WHY?) on earth would you end up with the tree
looking in better focus than the subject? Again, there are several
similar images - interesting creative choice....

Douglas wrote:

Without actually knowing it, the image thief from AU and his mate, the 44
year old donut eating backwards

Wouldn't a 44 year old donut be kind of stale?

Sweat maybe?

--
Wedding Photography anywhere between Coffs Harbour NSW and Rainbow Beach
Qld.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas
http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com


"Mardon" wrote in message
. 130...
: wrote:
:
: - has he returned to film again, or was it digital's turn to make a
: comeback this time?
:
: If you compare images "group-pier-2" and "group-pier-3" from "The Ball
: Family" gallery, a couple of large spots of what appears to be sensor dust
: are clearly visible in the sky. I would think that these photos, at
least,
: must have been taken with a digital; probably a dSLR if that is really
: sensor dust.

Absolutely!

--
Wedding Photography anywhere between Coffs Harbour NSW and Rainbow Beach
Qld.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas
http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com


"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
: Douglas wrote:
:
: Without actually knowing it, the image thief from AU and his mate, the
44
: year old donut eating backwards
:
: Wouldn't a 44 year old donut be kind of stale?