Barry Beckham

Allan You have had a lot of advice here and I am not sure more will help or hinder. I don't see the resizing of 3:2 images to what you suggested in your first post as a problem at all. You have clearly recognised that to retain the format from your camera you are changing the width size to 1024 pixels and allowing the height to take care of itself. I do that myself quite a bit and you usually end up with something around 680 pixels in height. I don't have a great experience of making DVD's, but I think Peter may be right and it is just the TV you are playing it back on. Before you do anything, can you try your DVD on another TV, maybe friends or family? If it plays OK on another TV, you know where the issue lies. In the project options you could try ticking the Fixed size of slide in pixels option. That will stop the slide show being expanded on the DVD and while you may see a smaller image on your TV, the cushion effect may be gone. Worth a try maybe.

we strongly advise producers entering our events to keep most of their JPGs at 1400x1050 to 1024x768 in size Why? I appreciate this says advice and not "you will" but that would be enough for me not to bother entering. Is that advice right?

Eric Yes, your telling me anything I don't already know and only a week ago I stepped onto a beach here and was accosted by a women who asked if I was taking pictures of her kids. As I was crouched down taking a picture of a blue canoe I don't know how she deduced I was the least interested in her or her kids, but the media has whipped up these stupid people into thinking any male with a camera is a threat. Shame, but a fact of life and a few words of explanation is usually the best policy, but what about a crowded beach. I agree the climate has curtailed what we would have done 20 years ago without a thought. I was joking about the terrorist cell, but perhaps not entirely. Have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM I watched this a year or so ago and even the so called law enforcers have no idea what the law is. So, when you go to the next Wensleydale show, don't forget to ask everyone who appears in your images permission before you use them in a public show

I wonder what the reaction would be if you walked around an airport taking photos with an SLR. I think you would quickly find yourself in the terrorist holding cell

Don Were these shot handheld or with a tripod? A bit of each, but most were on a tripod from what I recall

I have had this idea for a while and just needed the right conditions to shoot the images and that came in Brisbane recently at the Mt Coot-Tha Botanical Gardens. Bright sunlight are not the best conditions for our photograpy, but it did allow some nice shots to be grabbed. A lot of work went into the creation of the images using Photoshop and then the placing of those images within the slide show. The right music had to be found that enhanced the introduction of each image and I think I have found that with one of our own royalty free tracks called Peace of the Inner Mind from the Peaceful Album Each image was placed into the slide show individually as they were created and few needed to be changed. What animation has been included is delicate and measured and was more to make the images fit the music rather than for animation sake. I needed to hold one or two images longer then usual to fit in with the music and chose strong images and added gentle animation to hold the attention and appeal. (I hope) Best viewed at 1920*1200 it is around 20MB and runs for 2 hours Only joking about the 2 hours, how does 6 minutes sound? You will find a PC and a Mac version here http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw4.htm

Though protest too much, give it a rest

DaveG Yes, although smaller monitors will play a larger slide show OK and retain format, if any textures, filters, delicate lines or some styles on titles and credits are used, they will be lost to some degree on a smaller monitor. It's not really practical to make a show like this and then make another to reduce the effect for smaller monitors. Too much time effort and TLC goes into it. They will have to live with it I am afraid until they get a larger monitor, which will happen in time. Of course the show has now been changed and the small images at the start remain on screen after the opening text has gone, so viewers have the time to see them. As they were only scene setters I don't think they need to be there long.

Eric The only problem with that is it rather messes up the whole point of the show. Andrew Of course your qualified to say. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, but she knows when one is being driven badly. You don't have to be an expert to have an opinion.

Eric Not sure what you mean here I would have liked the transparency effect to merge to show the featured image at 100% visibility. Do you mean not have a texture on the image at some point?

I have been updating the on-line file with the adjustments suggested, so it could be Murphy's law reared its head and my updating the file caused the problem However. I have just tested the link myself and it came down OK, unzipped and played fine

Dave Yes, that was the one thing I picked up myself as I watched the sequence over and over again for the past few days. You either read the text or look at the images, but I convinced myself there was just enough time to do both, but the more I watched it myself, the more doubt crept in. Your comment has confirmed my thoughts and I will have to fix it now. Thanks for the heads up on the title too, I will fix tthat at the same time. later, changes made, the same link above will download a reworked version

I have been working on this slide show for months and I have been back and forth to it a hundred times. That, in itself is not a good sign for me. I have been trying to get the right feel to the images and the manipulations and I am still not sure I have. In the end you get so wrapped up in the project that you have trouble seeing the wood from the trees. Your own judgment on whether you are producing anything others may want to see becomes clouded (I recognise this could be Self Indulgence at work?) The only solution is to post it and see what others, (not clouded with the same creative mist) makes of it. Well, this is what I have come to ground with. Comments are welcomed and don't worry about causing any offence, you have no chance of that. It's at the top of this page in both PC and Mac format. It is about 4:30 secs in length and around 22Mb in size. While best seen at resolution 1920*1200/1920*1080 it will play fine on all resolutions. http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw4.htm

While I am struggling to come up with something a bit different for an AV you come up with three of them and my finger didn't even twitch towards the escape Key on any of them I would have argued at one point that the size of the slide show doesn't matter and did I read correctly that you don't yet have a wide screen yourself, but these shows do look impressive on a large flat screen monitor. I have seen a few of these fractal AV's and dabbled myself a little, but I think yours is by far the best I have seen so far. Everything balanced well and it was a bit like looking at a fish tank filled with beautiful fish, or we could almost be looking through the Hubble telescope onto the deep reaches of space. In my view, you have chosen the perfect length for this AV. As beautiful as the fractals are, there is a limit to how many you can take in one sitting and I think you got that about perfect. There is some great photographs in frozen and as I watched it I wanted to start asking questions, where ? - how? It’s not every day you can photograph Polar Bears with cubs. I also like the variation in images and the whole thing just worked. I like textures and have been working on an AV for weeks now trying to blend images with textures, so I was hooked from the start, but it reached a point where I thought there has to be something else to this (judging by the quality of the other two) and that was when the message of the What Lies Beneath AV started to become clear. What a great finish too. Can't wait to see what is next

Its the written word lost in translation

OK Cici Enough said, I didn't really understand your reply anyway, but this is only a debate, not an attack on you, relax a bit.

Cici As I have already said, there is no emotion in the written word and had I made my original observations to you in person, there is no way you would not have been upset, I am not that type of person. I apologise for my phrasing, but I would like you to understand there was no intention to be less than diplomatic. Having said that, if someone does say something which you or any other forum member feels is out of place, isn't it better to ask for clarification before assuming the worst and then reacting accordingly. Another point missed, especially by Eric is the fact that I don't actually dislike your sequence I think it is fine. Had I visited that place I would have done much the same as you. I like the building, the sweeping lines and the general photography, but my approach would have been different from there as I have already (not very well it seems) said. I still think that there needs to be clarification regarding shows posted here, but there seems to be a roaring silence on that matter. I know very well what's the general opinion about duration but as you I considere length of a show is determined by content. I hope I don't upset you again, but I am not sure I could go along with what you say above. What makes a batch of images interesting is often determined by what the author decides not to show. In other words what they edit out. What I have in mind here is the family friend who visits you following their holiday and insists on showing you every image they shot on their holiday, all 500 of them. Some of us would rather slit our wrists than sit through torture like that. Of course we are far too polite at the time to tell our friend what we really feel, so we give them a huge ovation at the end. Whether that is for the content or the relief it is all over is another question. However, the same batch of images edited down to 50 or 60 are far more watchable. I think one of the most important skills in AV is editing. An opinion is just one persons view, who is to say that view is right? Well, surely that is you the author, you listen to what is said, but at the end of the day you can choose to ignore that contribution or not. Here is a question for anyone to just consider. You have an unlimited number of suburb photographs to view, which are not your own and you have never seen before (choose any subject that interests you). How many of these photographs can you look at before you start to get bored. When you find a great website and gallery on line how many images do you look at in one sitting, I bet it isn't 60.

John I always look on a forum in a similar way to Photographic club, particularly one like this forum where there is a fair number of core contributors. We come together to share a common interest and critiquing is the core of any photographic club as many will know and it has been accepted here (in the most) for as long as I can recall. It was the critiquing and comments that helped me over the years and I always welcomed it. I didn't seem to have any problems when a judge didn't see my image/slide show quite as I did and I either accepted the comments or not. I have to say that on some occasions the comments did seen easier to understand after some weeks had passed. As the years passed I began to understand why. The self indulgent mist that was clouding my judgement had cleared by then and I was able to take others views a little more easily. However, I also experienced a number of people who got so upset at comments made about their work that they left the club. Once wonders why they ever entered images at all. Well, I have a theory that they were looking for adulation and when it didn't come they threw their dummy out of the pram. I have a test for any slide show I make. When complete I place the exe on my desktop and I play that slide show at least once a day for a week to 10 days. If after that time I feel no changes need to be made I will publish the show. The truth is I never make it, there is always something to be found and when I break that rule someone else always spots what I should have done and I kick myself for being impatient. The trouble is there is no emtion in the written word and that makes it so easy to read into the words what is not there. Then someone assumes a motive is there, which isn't and replies accordingly. That's how arguments start. Forum members should realize that before they put pen to paper, so to speak. They could be wrong couldn't they?

John I have always assumed differently than that and if we stop and ask ourselves why we post anything on the internet, particulalry an enthusiast website it is to reach a wider audience and get a response isn't it? If we posted a show here and no comment was ever made, it would be quite disappointing. Well, to me it would as I do try to please most of the people most of the time while still pleasing myself too. If we saw an introduction thread that attracted no response at all we would all think that was strange wouldn't we. I have always (wrongly it seems) assumed that the posting of the show on this forum was an invitation to comment, but as the old saying goes "assume makes an ass out of u and me" Well, it all now seems rather confusing as some authors welcome comment and some (obviously) do not, but how does one tell? The only safe way is keep quite unless you can be positive about all aspects of the show. Perhaps the safest way is to have two categories for posting shows, one for those who invite contructive comments and those who don't. Staying with only positive comments, is worthless because no matter how experienced or skilled you are, others (even those unconnected with photography) can have a genuine comment and often they can be right too. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, but she knows when one is being driven badly. I for one fall repeatedly into the Self Indulgence trap and we often need someone not connected with our project to shake us out of that with a contructive comment. Moderators Is it worth considering another place for authors who welcome comment so we avoid any upset in the future. This may not be the best place for this reply, so please move it if you think it appropriate.

my sincere apologies to Eric and Cici and in the interests of harmony, perhaps I will keep any comments to myself in future unless they are 100%l positive of course. It seems my initial misgivings about posting a comment where bang on tho. I should have trusted them and kept my mouth shut it seems.

Maureen Great stuff, every image a winner

Eric I did send you a personal message, but you haven't responded. Isn't it a little unfair to label a person's view an assassination just because you don't agree with it? or have you allowed your dislike of me get the better of you again. This sort of response can do a lot of damage to a great forum, if people feel they cannot respond in any other way, but fully positive and in line with the core members. In that case many will not respond at all and that doesn't help those who are genuinely looking for honest feedback. We can all get a little self indulgent when making shows and I include myself in there too. It often takes someone else to shake us free of that. It is part and parcel of the creative process. It is more difficult to give constructive comments than it is to give praise and we do have moderators on the site who would quickly step in and remove any remarks that were inappropriate or offensive. Why do you feel you need to comment on my comments on a slide show by Cici, Why not view the show and make your own comments independently of anyone else. Just voice your own opinions and have some respect for others who may not share your views. It is Cici who must decide if any of the comments made about his show have merit or not. Advice can be taken or left and I am sure the author can make those decisions for himself.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> Cici My appologies for drifting off the topic we should be on

Hello Cici I must admist that I have agonised for a couple of days over responding to your slide show and making a comment as the others have. I am also surprised that there have only been 4 people who have made a comment for you and I think you can draw some conclusions from this. Far more would have downloaded and watched your show, so why so few comments. Those comments given are all very good ones. Your avatar shows you as a man of senior years, so I guess you know that it requires almost no effort to say "That's nice", more nerve to give contructive feedback. (no criticism of the other four contributors) Remember too that we all have our own likes and dislikes and that is why any feedback you ever get, you can choose to take it or leave it, especially mine The building is quite stunning and is a good choice for an audio visual sequence but 9 minutes is way too long. We are enthusiasts on this site and as a result you are probably going to get a better than average chance that we will sit for the 9 minutes and watch your sequence. I would suggest those who are less enthusiastic will not and they will reach for the escape key. I think you have enough good material for 3, maybe 4 minutes and by reducing the length your show, you will be improved in two ways. A shorter show will be far more watchable and you can take out some shots that are repetative in the sequence and again the show will improve in my view Commenting on an authors choice of music is always an odd thing to do because music is so personal to us, but I am sorry to say it didn't work for me. I think if the station had been an old style one like some of the main city stations we see all over Europe with those huge curved roofs, the cathedral style music would have worked much better. My first thoughts on seeing the station was that it is very futuristic and more modern choice of music would have worked better for me. The titles and use of animation at the start was good, but you need to adjust one set of letters that go off the screen on the left and the right. The other animation while clever, doesn't add to the impact of the show and can easily be missed. It is also a little fast perhaps. The show appears to have been made at 1024*768 pixels, yet I can see quality issues in the even tones in some images. It suggests that a camera with a small chip has been used or you have cropped the images a little too small. The station looks like the perfect place for a wide angle lens approach and I often put my camera on self timer and place it on the floor is such places to get a viewpoint that is a bit different. I think the sweeping shapes would be emphasised and more powerful with this approach. My agony has been that unlike the other contributors here, the sequence didn't work as well for me and with so few comments made (all positive) it would almost look as though I was being contrary for the sake of it. I hope my contructive comments are taken in the spirit they are given.

Yachtsman1 Barry your reply is somewhat one sided as you sell music. That is making an awful big assumption and sort of suggests that because I sell royalty free music on behalf of the record labels my views cannot be trusted, or am I now making too big an assuption too I wasn't being critical of you or the post, but from my own experience music generated in this way lacks the very ingredients we need for a sucessfull slide show. I doubt the cost would be a big issue to most people if the product was good, but just think for a moment how can it be. I also believe (not sure) that these packages are aimed at those with no musical knowledge. Those that do would choose something completely different. In our hands (ie those of us who do not play a musical instrument) the music we produce will not have that impact we need. If it did there would be thousands of smart kids in bedrooms churing out superb music. Apart from an odd isolated case there are not. As I think I have said before AV is made up of two core ingredients, visuals and sound. We have to work darn hard to get visuals right, don't let the second part slip through your fingers by using substandard music. Having said all that and with the numbers of people visiting the forum, can someone prove me wrong. I would be delighted to be able to write another post soon saying, I was wrong in my earlier views, but I doubt that will happen will it. There is an old saying for fisherman that much of the shiny tackle and lures in the tackle shop is more to catch the angler, rather than fish. Why is it my thoughts turn to that saying when I think of this type of software.

I think I picked this probelm up a few weeks ago with an animation I was making. I assumed it was operator error, but this post makes me wonder if I should have paid more notice. I was doing exactly what Denwell describes, bringing opacity of an object with a shadow up and down and I could see an effect on the picture that was coming into view. I couldn't recreate it now, but if it shows up again I will save the effect. Just worth being aware of