Hey folks. I'm about 2990 messages behind on reading PDML. It's
been a bad few weeks for me on several fronts at once. But I did
want to reply to this...
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Alto - by D. Glenn Arthur, Jr.
> Many times I am drawn to an image that challenges my perspective a bit.
> Forces me to see in ways that I normally wouldn't. Glenn's image here takes
> me down that path. I am pleased by the fact that I can't see the face of
> the person holding the sax. It pushes my attention on the instrument
> itself.
Cool! Thanks.
> That being said, there are a few elements here that work for me and
> don't work for me. I like the star filter effect on the small reflections,
> but it is too strong on the main reflection coming from the hand.
I was actually going for a BIG sparkle there, but yeah, I did get
a little more than I was aiming for...
> I like
> the coloration. It comes across a bit more dreamy or abstract.
*nod* So do I, and I think a significant part of that here is
the choice of film. The other roll I shot was Reala 100 , and I
loaded the Super HG 1600 to try some shots with just the room
light (that 60W incandescent bulb), but went ahead and shot a
few more flash shots at the end just to use up the rest of the
roll. I _didn't_ expect to pick one of the Super HG shots over
all of the Reala ones, but here one of the attributes of Super HG
which is usually a flaw turns into an asset: that muted-colours,
dreamy look. It also allowed the wall several feet away to
contribute it's colour the the background, simply from its speed.
I think I overexposed a little (intentionally) but I don't remember
for sure -- if so, that would account for the grain being less
apparent than it usually is with this film.
This isn't the first time I've had surprising results from a film
you'd expect to be less apropriate. There was a portrait I shot
a few years ago on Kodak Royal Gold 1000 in shade, simply because
I already had it loaded (and I don't think I had an extra body
handy then to load with a different type of film). That film often
goes too red, but in that case it countered the blueness of the shade.
And the grain, surprisingly, made more of a softening effect instead
of actually looking grainy. I think there's a similar effect here,
but less so.
Once in a while I get lucky that way.
> I would
> prefer to not see the watch - it does nothing to add to the photo.
True, true, that's really the one thing I regret about this photo,
and I really wish I'd thought of it at the time and asked her to
remove it. *sigh*
> I would
> also like to see an angle on the sax from corner to corner instead of
> straight up and down.
I hadn't thought of that for this shot, which is kind of funny,
as I'm often tempted to do corner-to-corner stuff when it doesn't
wind up working as well as I'd envisioned. Thanks for the
suggestion. Y'know, maybe I should revisit this subject and see
how I can improve on this photo.
> I have given some nits to pick at but by and large I enjoy this image. It
> certainly required some creative thought and preparation and I think that
> the effort is well worth it. Good job Glenn!
Again, thanks -- and yes, this is one that I spent some time and
thought on, moving things around, using different combinations
of flashes, shooting about a roll and a half of film, if I remember
right. It feels good to know that it shows. *whew*
-- Glenn
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
