Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: selections for a show  (Read 2741 times)
jeremypayne
Guest
« on: September 11, 2011, 01:10:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm likely going to put together 12 prints for a small exhibit. 

Originally, I was thinking I would do something "thematic" ... but lately I've been thinking of doing more of an eclectic mix. 

I've put the frontrunners in a little web gallery.  Any thoughts on them as a group or individually?   

http://photography.jeremypayne.net/web/show
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8309



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2011, 02:58:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy,

I like them as a group. Several have strong graphic content, which encourages the viwere to look for the graphic elements even in the landscapes.

What they seem to me to have in common is a sense that each was carefully seen.

Of course a "theme" show could also be very good, but often weaker images will be included just because they fit the theme. That's my feeling; others may disagree.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 04:20:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, What I saw looked quite good, but you need a new hosting agency. The server was slow enough that I finally had to give up.
Logged

popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2011, 12:29:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, I think it's a fine set of photos. I had no slowness issues with your site.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2011, 12:23:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Just tried it again. Same problem. If Pop's not having a speed problem then the problem has to be in one of the www nodes. Weird.
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2011, 03:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, all! 

My wife is arguing against the "eclectic mix" in favor of a "City" theme ... or "Water" ... I'm holding firm - so far.

@Russ ... for whatever reason, you've never been able to resolve a good route to my host!   So weird ... I would have thought that in the intervening years and months that the "internets" would "evolve" and this problem would go away.  Guess not.

I host at home, but I'm on a pretty big connection that's on the TWNYC DOCSIS 3.0 ring ... 5 mbps up and 50 mbps down ... bandwidth certainly isn't the problem. 

Do me a favor, if you don't mind, and run a Trace Route on http://photography.jeremypayne.net and tell me what it says ...
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2011, 04:00:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, Just tried a ping on your web. Ping couldn't find it, and tracert says it can't resolve it. It's a real head scratcher. I'm able to work with other sites in your general area with no problem, and Pop seems to have a straight-through shot. Huh??
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 04:03:39 PM by RSL » Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2011, 05:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

try this address ...

http://thepaynes.dlinkddns.com/web/show

Does that work?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2011, 08:07:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Same problem. I still like the biplane on the roof, though.
Logged

degrub
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2011, 08:38:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy,

i have been able to get to both links, however, the first is intermittently slow to start. When i run tracert, the 2nd link times out in RR domain somewhere in NYC and the first seems to timeout closer to SBC.

Are you using a IPv6 stack by chance ?
frank
Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2011, 12:49:43 AM »
ReplyReply

With the first link each photo takes an average of 1-2 seconds to load for me. With the second link each one loads instantaneously.
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 787



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2011, 09:25:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I had no problems with speed via my Mac and Chrome. Other sites that had slowness problems with my Safari and Firefox are now plenty fast with Chrome that I installed last week.
The only photos from your selection that didn't work for me were the ones with selective focus. I think that the general public would find the large areas of out-of-focus as jarring as I did within the overall presentation.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2011, 09:27:00 AM »
ReplyReply

What makes me scratch my head is the "unable to resolve target system name" thing. Download from both URL's is molasses slow, but I can reach them, which means the system has to resolve the URLs for me to get there, yet neither ping nor tracert can resolve the URL.
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1886


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2011, 09:39:01 AM »
ReplyReply

It might be an issue with the DNS provider you're using. Try using Mr Google's at 8.8.8.4
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2011, 10:07:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Justan, That's a thought, but the DNS provider has to be providing the URLs for me to get to the sites. I could understand the ping and tracert problem if I couldn't raise the sites.
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1886


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2011, 10:33:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I dunno the source problem, but do know itís local to at least you, so and am offering a means to identify or eliminate one possible reason.

You provide URL. DNS translates the URL you provide to the underlying ip address. The complete test is to

1)   change the dns
2)   open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /flushdns and hit Enter
3)   on the next line do an ipconfig /registerdns and hit Enter

Try the site again. If the problem persists, itís not DNS.

Another test that will bypass the dns server is to provide the ip address of the host. As example were you to put the following address into your browser it would take you to Google.com http://74.125.127.103/ but by providing the IP address you donít rely on DNS to do the translation.

The approach above doesnít work unless the site owns itís ip address.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2011, 10:43:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I should have said that the DNS provider has to be providing the IPs. Thanks, Justan, I could try that, but Jeremy's is the only site I've ever had a problem with. Think I'll leave things as they are.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 10:46:22 AM by RSL » Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2011, 10:58:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm gonna side with your wife on this one. The eclectic mix of photos, while individually very nice, does not really show a cohesive point of view. Sure, it shows range, which I am sure you were looking for, but I don't see much depth....at least as far as message goes.

The eclectic mix tells people you have really nice pictures, but a more edited and thought-out grouping says something about YOU, as a photographer. The former is great if you're trying to start a photography business and want to show your abilities, but the latter is best if you are trying to reveal something about yourself as an artist.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:01:06 AM by ckimmerle » Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2011, 01:45:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I should have said that the DNS provider has to be providing the IPs. Thanks, Justan, I could try that, but Jeremy's is the only site I've ever had a problem with. Think I'll leave things as they are.
It's not an issue with DNS resolution. It sounds more like either a Firewall issue or some problem with your ISP.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2011, 02:25:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Pop, If it were a firewall problem I'd be having trouble with at least one or two other sites, but I'm not. My ISP is Qwest, which covers most of this part of the country. Seems to me that if Qwest were the problem there's be a deafening outcry. If I were having trouble with other sites I'd spend time tracking down the problem, but it's a cost/benefit consideration: I have a lot of other stuff that needs doing.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad