Barry Beckham

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

I wouldn't touch this with a bargepole. I know the theory sounds great but I tried the Sony version a while back and the results are exactly what you would expect, adequate, good quality music, but lacking in the very ingredient we need for Audio Visual. Its the same ingredients that make some music dire and other music delightfull, same notes, different order. I would love to be proved wrong, but this software has been around for quite some time and if it is so great, how come we never see it used? Anyone got a sample they have made that they can post on Mediafire to make me eat my words? Ther's a challenge

try here http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw4.htm

My problem lies in the fact that I'm not a technically minded person, and when I see some of the styles etc that you guys apply to your shows I wish I could do that too but it just wont happen. You can't allow yourself to be defeated that easily, many of the most pleasing effects are in fact easier to create than many people might think. I always think software is like learning to drive, at first we just can't quite get the hang of it, then suddenly we are doing it and when we look back we can't even decide when it was that the penny dropped. Some of the complex animations on this forum can be demanding and don't even try to keep up with the Dom, on the technical side of animation, well, I think everyone accepts he is way out in front. so sometimes I go back to producer to try and emulate what I see. Well, if I can cut the diplomacy for a while, don't, dump PSG its rubbish stay with PTE and learn just a little more about it and you won't look back. Since when can anything worthwhile be learned in 2 minutes and the learning is fun too. Remember, all the fancy software in the world will not hide the fact that a slide show is just not very good. No transitions or animation you can ever dream up will make a bad picture/idea good. Concentrate first on a few standard shows without animation and use the old standard fade/in/out and you will see what I mean. Many of the effects that do retain charm and add to our shows are created in our image editors anyway.

Andrew As Lin said, there is no real difference, just in how it is displayed so, your not comparing apples with apples. Your post reminded me of a view I have held for many years that it is often better to settle on one bit of software and then we tend to get the best from that software. Even if that software is reported to be less worthy than others, it is often better for our creativity if we stay with one. It's horses for courses (of course) as some love to use all different types of software and compare them. I am not one of those and boringly stay with a few chosen selections, but what you have experienced is pretty typical when we use different software that does much the same thing. Having said all that, can I ask you a question. I hope I am right in assuming you were first a ProShow Gold user. If that is so, what prompted you to moved over to PicturesToExe

Igor This is an identical problem I wrote about the other day and one we are also experiencing in our on line shop. Something has been changed in relation to the banks I think and the result is some of our customers are not receiving the final email that contains download links. We are having to pay a a fair bit of money to have someone sort it out for us and I hope it will be fixed soon. Now we know about the problem we can send the link manually, but it does take away that instant response we expect these days from on line purchases.

This may be just my experience, but slides shows on battery power, not a great idea. If your going to experience any problems at all, it will be while on battery power. Well, that is my experience anyway.

Well, it was just a suggestion for Igor to make a decision on but DG's idea is a better one. We can insert them directly. We can insert them as a child of a frame We can insert them in combination with a mask. So what, they should still remain at the size you created them, where is the logic of making 40 - 800*600 images and having to visit every one of those images to change them? Who in their right mind wants to make an image at one size and have the software enlarge that to fill the screen. This method only suits the one size fits all way of working and we know for the really best AV's that ain't the way to go. Better to have all the images shown at 100% or better still DG's idea. Having said that, there may be technical programming difficulties that prevent that.

Igor I often create a slide show at 1920*1200, but use images smaller than that, inset images, animated etc. Every time I go into the objects and animation screen I have to reset every image size to 100% via the size position in pixels or it will be expanded to fit the screen. I appreciate I have raised these size issues before. Could that default be the other way round so when we take an image into a 1920*1200 show and the image is maybe 800*600, it is diplayed the size we created it? Or is there some issue I am not aware of that forces things to be like this. B

Justin There some sources of free music, but generally speaking its not going to be that good is it. If it were good, it would sell and not have to be free. Pay a little and get something worthwhile for your project. Sometimes what you have to pay can be as little as $5 Australian. Hardly going to break the bank and the music is good. Have a look here http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/royaltyfreemusic_new.htm

Later 7pm Aussie time recieeved this email from Avast Hello, false positive was fixed in new VPS update (091203-1). Sorry for any inconvenience. Milos Hrdy Virus analyst

This is actually worse than I thought, with Avast anti virus software running you can't even open the PTE 6 program, you will need to close Avast protection first. This will have a lunatic fringe frothing at the mouth