Re: PAW: "Mount John"
I'll reply to all the responses at once: Just about everyone has mentioned the lack of detail in the foreground - and they're right... so I opened up the image again in Photoshop and applied the highlight/shadow tool to lighten up the shadows a bit. Bear in mind that it still might not be enough, as my monitor is quite bright. Original: http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=29-May-2004 New: http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/paw/mt_john_2.html Film was E100SW, with an 81A (warming) filter - no polariser. All that warming almost made up for the -6°C frost that morning. In reply to Bruce, I took another picture soon afterwards from a slightly different place, using the 15mm lens. It has a far nicer foreground, and because the right hand side was facing closer to the sun the mist on the lake was much easier to see. OTOH the mountain is reduced to a molehill and some other distracting bits crept into the frame. Thanks for all the positive comments, guys. I feel a bit better about the picture now. I was a little frustrated last night after wrestling with Photoshop trying to make the colours vaguely represent the slide (I have a small light box on the computer desk). Then I converted to sRGB for the web, which screwed up the shadows... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: *istD in the (battle)field
Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Waterson wrote: The shot with the mortar flame was captured using the *istD and the 360FGZ flash with rear curtain sync. The shutter was in bulb and the aperature wide open. Am I understanding this correctly? With the shutter open, you let the mortar flame trigger the flash? Cool idea! no no. The shot went like this The shutter was opened ( it is dark and nothing is exposed) The mortar shell dropped in. (still in darkness) Mortar goes BOOM ( the flame appears ) I release the shutter ( flash fires with rear curtain sync and we see the troops ) Hope this is clearer Kind regards Kevin After I sent the question, I thought about it some more and realized this is what you probably meant. It's still a new idea for me but makes a lot of sense. It would be a lot easier to react after the motar fired than to anticipate the shot. I have an AF500. I need a tutorial on how and when to use all the features it offers. Thanks for taking the time to clarify for someone on the learning curve. Andrew
Re: Tripod Question: 3 section vs. 4 section
I think so, all other things being equal. All my tripods are two section - Bogen. Regards, Bob... From: "Shawn K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Well the title pretty much says it, is there a stability difference between > 3 section and 4 section tripod legs?? In particular I am looking at the > Gitzo 1227M and 1228M series of tripods. While I would certainly appreciate > the smaller size of a 4 section tripod leg, I would not appreciate a > reduction in stability, even if it is fairly small. If anyone can chime in > with their experiences it would be appreciated. I really want to get the > 1227 because it's just that much cheaper, but if the 1228 is just as solid, > and smaller, I'll probably spring for it. Thanks for your help.
Re: Tripod Question: 3 section vs. 4 section
On 29 May 2004 at 23:48, Shawn K. wrote: > Hi list. > > Well the title pretty much says it, is there a stability difference between 3 > section and 4 section tripod legs?? In particular I am looking at the Gitzo > 1227M and 1228M series of tripods. While I would certainly appreciate the > smaller size of a 4 section tripod leg, I would not appreciate a reduction in > stability, even if it is fairly small. If anyone can chime in with their > experiences it would be appreciated. I really want to get the 1227 because it's > just that much cheaper, but if the 1228 is just as solid, and smaller, I'll > probably spring for it. Thanks for your help. I have no experience with the Gitzos but I do have both the 3 and 4 section Manfrotto Carbon tripods. I use them in entirely different ways and stability has been less of a concern to me than weight and closed length. In both cases if I want the best stability I'll simply extend only the first leg section and get down lower. Four leg section might get a bit much with the Gitzo style leg locks too, the Manfrottos simply open and close so are very fast to operate. See the following link for a discussion entitled "Gitzo 1228 vs. 1227 - Small ballhead to go with": http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000n3e Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Tripod Question: 3 section vs. 4 section
Hi list. Well the title pretty much says it, is there a stability difference between 3 section and 4 section tripod legs?? In particular I am looking at the Gitzo 1227M and 1228M series of tripods. While I would certainly appreciate the smaller size of a 4 section tripod leg, I would not appreciate a reduction in stability, even if it is fairly small. If anyone can chime in with their experiences it would be appreciated. I really want to get the 1227 because it's just that much cheaper, but if the 1228 is just as solid, and smaller, I'll probably spring for it. Thanks for your help. -Shawn
Website v3.0
Hi Gang, I found 2 very useful pieces of software in the last couple of weeks. The first one is called Media Recover, and as the name suggests, it assists in the recovery of lost files from flash memory cards. I bought a copy after accidentally deleting some files from both PC and CF card. Lo and behold, all were recoverable from the CF card. Excellent piece of software, and pretty cheap. http://www.mediarecover.com/ Second piece of software is free, and absolutely brilliant. I have just redone my entire website using this program, and it is just fantastic (the software...although I like too think the website is pretty good now ). The program is called JAlbum 4.4, and is available free from http://jalbum.net/ Download a copy of the latter program now...you wont regret it. Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 0414-967644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heritageservices.com.au
RE: the pile
Ah. Stay tuned. > -Original Message- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 4:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: the pile > > The pile was in there. But we want to see Tanja reducing its size. > > > On May 29, 2004, at 4:50 PM, tom wrote: > > > Wasn't it in there ? > > > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg > > > > tv > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:27 PM > >> To: pentax list > >> Subject: Re: the pile > >> > >> On 29/5/04, tv, discombobulated, offered: > >> > >>> Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. > >>> > >>> I thought you should know. > >>> > >>> tv > >> > >> Come on, let's see a pic! > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Cotty > >> > >> > >> ___/\__ > >> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > >> ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps > >> _ > >> > >> > >> > > > >
Re: the pile
Paul Stenquist wrote: > > The pile was in there. But we want to see Tanja reducing its size. > > On May 29, 2004, at 4:50 PM, tom wrote: > > > Wasn't it in there ? > > > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg > > > > tv Too racy ann
RE: the pile
>Wasn't it in there ? > >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg > >tv No no, I mean a pic of Tan arriving... or arrived. Or anything. One of your infamous self-portrait + guest shots :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: the pile
tom wrote: > > The pile reached maximum mass yesterday - > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg > > Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. > > I thought you should know. > > tv gawd, we cant eat THAT much vegemite! ann
Re: OT - Request for GFM attendee
On 29/5/04, JOHN F, discombobulated, offered: >Pity we didn't know about this earlier, or I could have just paid for >these for you instead of trying to find my UK chequebook, a stamp, ... LOL Nothing, in life, is easy ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Outside the Shattuck Theater in Berkeley
Sorry, Dario ... those "distractions" contribute to the story. They were left there specifically to give the people a sense of place. Without those items they could be against a wall anywhere. Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Trying to get rid of some distracting details, I ended up with this one: > http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/outside1-grey.jpg > > Dario > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:17 PM > Subject: Re: Outside the Shattuck Theater in Berkeley > > > > Hi Bruce ... > > > > I was going to convert to B&W ... it actually looked pretty good with a > > simple greyscal flip in PS - but decided to get some feedback, see if > > anyone cared for the colors. I usually "see" in B&W, and am often > > distracted by color, or am not the best judge of its use in photographs. > > The top one's my first choice as well. > > > > Here's the same photo in color and with two conversion techniques. The > > conversions were just quickies, but the differences are pretty clear. > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/outside-conv.html > > > > Thanks for taking time to comment. > > > > Shel Belinkoff
Re: the pile
One of the boxes appears to be bleeding styrofoam peanuts... - Original Message - From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: the pile > The pile reached maximum mass yesterday - > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg > > Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. > > I thought you should know. > > tv >
RE: PAW: Street Portraiture
Pretty nice, Paul. I always wish that I had the nerve (chutzpah?) to do that kind of thing. A shame she may not see this... -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 6:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW: Street Portraiture I hope she'll get a copy as well. She scribbled her e-mail address on a piece of paper, but so far I've been unable to decipher it. I shoot in Birmingham quite a bit, so perhaps I'll run into her again. I'd like to do a session with her. She knows how to take direction and is comfortable with the camera. Paul On May 29, 2004, at 5:51 AM, Keith Whaley wrote: > I hope she'll get a copy... > In spite of Shel's comments, I think it's the sort of image that all > her friends will Ooo and Ahhh over, and tell her "That's really YOU! > What a great shot!" > She'll love it, and frame it. > So will her mum... > > keith whaley > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> She was flattered. She had seen my camera and didn't turn away, so it >> was obviously a good opportunity to request a shot. She posed quite >> enthusiastically. >> Paul >> On May 28, 2004, at 10:53 PM, graywolf wrote: >>> Nice, Paul. That takes guts to do. Though thinking back to when I >>> did things like that, they usually are more flattered than put out. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> Once in awhile I'll stop someone on the street and ask them if I can shoot a portrait there on the spot. I found this lady earlier today, knocked off two frames of her in front of a blue wall, PhotoShoped her around a bit, and here she is: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2397401&size=lg Paul >>> >>> >>> -- >>> graywolf >>> http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html >>> >>> >
Re: *istD in the (battle)field
It is clear. Great shot and sound technical approach. I like that. Paul On May 29, 2004, at 5:41 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Waterson wrote: The shot with the mortar flame was captured using the *istD and the 360FGZ flash with rear curtain sync. The shutter was in bulb and the aperature wide open. Am I understanding this correctly? With the shutter open, you let the mortar flame trigger the flash? Cool idea! no no. The shot went like this The shutter was opened ( it is dark and nothing is exposed) The mortar shell dropped in. (still in darkness) Mortar goes BOOM ( the flame appears ) I release the shutter ( flash fires with rear curtain sync and we see the troops ) Hope this is clearer Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: *istD in the (battle)field
This one time, at band camp, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Waterson wrote: > > > > The shot with the mortar flame was captured using the *istD and the > > 360FGZ flash with rear curtain sync. The shutter was in bulb and the > > aperature wide open. > > Am I understanding this correctly? With the shutter open, you let the > mortar flame trigger the flash? Cool idea! no no. The shot went like this The shutter was opened ( it is dark and nothing is exposed) The mortar shell dropped in. (still in darkness) Mortar goes BOOM ( the flame appears ) I release the shutter ( flash fires with rear curtain sync and we see the troops ) Hope this is clearer Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
RE: Street Portraiture
Paul Stenquist made me feel inadequate by, posting these links: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399802 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399804 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399807 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399808 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399810 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399829 Wonderful Paul! Malcolm
Re: GFM weather
Only if you can prove, beyond a doubt, that you have Polynesian blood... keith Cotty wrote: City folk! Sunrise down here was 6:11am today. It will be a few minutes earlier in a week, plus it is even earlier (probably about 5:30am) on top the mountain (horizon is lower). So you better start practicing getting up at 4:30am. I just remembered why I like shooting people so much... Sleeping is much more fun than watching a sunrise. Bill Bill, you must be having the same dreams as me. Hey tonight, I get to carry the girl off, okay?! Cheers, Cotty
Re: the pile
The pile was in there. But we want to see Tanja reducing its size. On May 29, 2004, at 4:50 PM, tom wrote: Wasn't it in there ? http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg tv -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:27 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: the pile On 29/5/04, tv, discombobulated, offered: Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. I thought you should know. tv Come on, let's see a pic! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Street Portraiture
Sorry Shel, but I'm not that one dimensional. I don't just shoot to make the client or subject happy. I shoot for a multitude of reasons. Yesterday's shot was an experiment. I wanted to see if I could achieve near studio results on a street corner, using diffuse light from an open sky and some PS manipulation. Sometimes I shoot to please myself, sometimes I shoot to make a documentary. Today, as chance would have it, I decided to have some fun with some stories on the street. Tomorrow, I might shoot some table top food in my studio. I shoot a lot of different things and don't apologize for any of them. Below you'll find some url's for today's street shooting in Birmingham. I think all of them tell a story. No manipulation aside from removing a man on the sidewalk in "Sniffing Each Other Out." http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399802 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399804 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399807 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399808 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399810 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399829 On May 29, 2004, at 3:13 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I think the difference between the positions is clear - and forgive this short and superficial comment - you shoot to make the client/subject happy, others make photographs to please themselves or for more of a documentary.
RE: the pile
Wasn't it in there ? http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg tv > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:27 PM > To: pentax list > Subject: Re: the pile > > On 29/5/04, tv, discombobulated, offered: > > >Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. > > > >I thought you should know. > > > >tv > > Come on, let's see a pic! > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > > >
Re: GFM weather
>> >City folk! Sunrise down here was 6:11am today. It will be a few minutes >> >earlier >> >in a week, plus it is even earlier (probably about 5:30am) on top the >> >mountain >> >(horizon is lower). So you better start practicing getting up at 4:30am. >> >> I just remembered why I like shooting people so much... > >Sleeping is much more fun than watching a sunrise. > >Bill Bill, you must be having the same dreams as me. Hey tonight, I get to carry the girl off, okay?! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Kastrup -- in transit to GFM
On 29/5/04, JOSTEIN OKSNE INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, discombobulated, offered: >Greetings from Kastrup airport, Copenhagen. > >I left Oslo at 17:30 EST today, and right now I'm stuck at the gate on >Kastrup, waiting for clearance to board the flight across the Atlantic. >We're already 20 minutes late...:-( > >Information told us it's just a minor technical checkout, so hopefully >we're off soon. > >On the flight from Oslo I sat beside two young fellas also going to NYC, >albeit without a Pentax in teir luggage. They're good company, though, >so it looks like I'll have no problem at all passing time in the air. > >The next post is hopefully from American soil. Jumping Jupiter this is starting to get exciting, I think I've wet myself. Oops, just a spillage. Waiter, more wine! Glass raised to the PDML. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: the pile
On 29/5/04, tv, discombobulated, offered: >Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. > >I thought you should know. > >tv Come on, let's see a pic! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Street Portraiture
On 29/5/04, SHEL, discombobulated, offered: [regarding Paul's gorgeous blue-eyed gal street portrait] >You've created something that does not exist. IMO, that's not a portrait >but a work of art, a creation. The work is good, the woman looks good, >but, imo, agreeing with Peter, some of her character is gone. I think, as a >portrait, you overdid the Photoshop work. If this were to be for a >magazine ad, I'd proffer high praise. The people in magazine ads are often >portrayed as "perfect examples of humankind," with flaws, wrinkles, and >anomalies removed so as to create a fantasy for the viewer. But this is a >portrait, and it should show more of the real person, Imo. Interesting. We all have a wide variety of limits we seem to adhere to. For instance, when I do portraits, I willingly get rid of pimples and blemishes, but not freckles or birthmarks. My reasoning is this: freckles are a permanent fixture of a face - although even these appear lighter or darker depending on exposure to the sun - and pimples, or acne, call it what you will, is/are transient and at any one time may appear or not, and where they will. Hence, I can justify to myself their removal. I think Shel will still find this practice atrocious. However, I have thought long and hard on this and am at ease with it. It's a boundary that I have drawn in the sand and which I have decided to stick to. it's my limit. My copy of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines a portrait as 'a painted, drawn or photographic likeness of a person or animal, elaborate or vivid description'... It goes on to describe 'likeness' thus: liken - make like (rare); represent as comparable or similar to... likeness - resemblance, semblance, portrait especially in respect of it's truth (have one's likeness taken, be painted, photographed...a good, bad, flattering likeness)... ... and so Shel's position tends to be supported by these definitions, although seemingly not exclusively. For in order to 'represent as comparable or similar to' then surely the image [in this case] does not have to be an absolute recreation in two dimensions of the original. I would interpret this as room for manoeuvre, and so Paul's portrait is valid within this definition, IMO. But this all harks back to the basic interpretation of photography as a medium. Is it a bone-fide representation of a scene, or is it an interpretation of a bona-fide representation of a scene? Is it real or is it Memorex??? These and other questions answered in the threads to come ;-) Waiter, more wine! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Event photography: morphed from: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Pretty accurate disciption of things, Bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the engagement photo, and the formals were usually separate packages done in the studio. The engagement photo in fact was often a freeby done in the hopes that the Bride would buy the formals and wedding package from that studio later. These were shot with the big portrait cameras as you mentioned A wedding package was usually the 10-12 B&W 8x10's I mentioned of the wedding ceremony. Very seldom was there much coverage of the reception, at least at the economic level I was aware of back then, as soon as the cake cutting was done so was the photographer. These "candids" were usually done with a Speed Graphic and roll film back, or a Rollei. You had to have quite a reputation to get away with the Rollei, as most folks equated "professional" with "big black camera" as I have mentioned several time before here on the list. Mostly only advertising photographers had Blads back then. For those who think a Hasselblad is a modern camera, the 500C came out in 1957. -- William Robb wrote: What has happened over the past few decades is that the cost per exposure has decreased dramatically. This benefits the consumer, in that they can now get more bang for the buck. In Tom's example of the 1950s photographer, the film was most likely 8x10 sheets, with the prints being made via contact. I know my parents wedding pictures from the late 1940's were done on 8x10 and 5x7 sheets. Before roll film became widely used, the option of the full coverage wedding just didn't exist. Medium format supplanted sheet film when interchangable lens medium format cameras started to show up in the late 1950's with the Hasselblad. Up until that time, roll film cameras were primarily folders of indeterminate quality, and were eschewed by the professional. When roll film and portable electronic flash became a quality option, the amount of coverage possible increased, and photographers started to provide coverage at the ceremony, and would take more studio pictures than a half dozen or so. 35mm dropped the cost per exposure even further, and at about the same time, mass production in the printing end became viable, along with colour prints. As the cost per exposure dropped, photographers who adopted the new formats were able to give more for less in terms of volume, and those who didn't adapt either retired or went bust. Of course, every time an "improvement" has come along, picture quality has suffered, but that is not really germaine to this part of the discussion, Digital is just another brick in the road. Now, it costs the same, whether the photographer shoots 100 pictures or a thousand. Does this mean the consumer gets a better product? In some ways perhaps, in other ways perhaps not. I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became part of the wedding. So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance. If this is what the consumer is getting when we say we are providing better coverage, then we are doing the customer a real disservice. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
If you feel you are giving your clients the best posible service for their money, why would my comments "touch a nerve"? My point was that when it was expensive and you may not get paid for it, you took no chances. You shot what you knew from experience the Bride would pay for. They did not often sell a "package" up front, it was a low price base package and hopefully extras. -- Bruce Dayton wrote: One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The photographer we had was more like your middle description. On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera editing or lazy. Sorry, you touched a nerve. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: It's here
Q: Although the new DA 14 have a different FOV on the *IstD than for 35 mm, would it have the same hyperfocal distance? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFM weather
Besides that sunsets are much prettier. GRIN Bill Owens wrote: City folk! Sunrise down here was 6:11am today. It will be a few minutes earlier in a week, plus it is even earlier (probably about 5:30am) on top the mountain (horizon is lower). So you better start practicing getting up at 4:30am. I just remembered why I like shooting people so much... Sleeping is much more fun than watching a sunrise. Bill -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: *istD in the (battle)field
Kevin Waterson wrote: The shot with the mortar flame was captured using the *istD and the 360FGZ flash with rear curtain sync. The shutter was in bulb and the aperature wide open. Am I understanding this correctly? With the shutter open, you let the mortar flame trigger the flash? Cool idea! Andrew Robinson
Event photography: morphed from: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
What has happened over the past few decades is that the cost per exposure has decreased dramatically. This benefits the consumer, in that they can now get more bang for the buck. In Tom's example of the 1950s photographer, the film was most likely 8x10 sheets, with the prints being made via contact. I know my parents wedding pictures from the late 1940's were done on 8x10 and 5x7 sheets. Before roll film became widely used, the option of the full coverage wedding just didn't exist. Medium format supplanted sheet film when interchangable lens medium format cameras started to show up in the late 1950's with the Hasselblad. Up until that time, roll film cameras were primarily folders of indeterminate quality, and were eschewed by the professional. When roll film and portable electronic flash became a quality option, the amount of coverage possible increased, and photographers started to provide coverage at the ceremony, and would take more studio pictures than a half dozen or so. 35mm dropped the cost per exposure even further, and at about the same time, mass production in the printing end became viable, along with colour prints. As the cost per exposure dropped, photographers who adopted the new formats were able to give more for less in terms of volume, and those who didn't adapt either retired or went bust. Of course, every time an "improvement" has come along, picture quality has suffered, but that is not really germaine to this part of the discussion, Digital is just another brick in the road. Now, it costs the same, whether the photographer shoots 100 pictures or a thousand. Does this mean the consumer gets a better product? In some ways perhaps, in other ways perhaps not. I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became part of the wedding. So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance. If this is what the consumer is getting when we say we are providing better coverage, then we are doing the customer a real disservice. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier > photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an > affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the > affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along > with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a > thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back > on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The > photographer we had was more like your middle description. > > On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little > better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a > sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the > sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and > take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and > you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the > only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, > was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the > situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A > significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's > control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not > positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure > just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised > sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. > > When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my > shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of > changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting > digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. > When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. > > Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon > or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying > on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the > majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of > only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can > offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. > Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change > from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations > continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as > a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera > editing or lazy. > > Sorry, you touched a nerve. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:07:00 AM, you wrote: > > g> Interestingly enough, this goes hand in hand with something I was just thinking > g> about the other night. > > g> Years
Re: Street Portraiture
I think the difference between the positions is clear - and forgive this short and superficial comment - you shoot to make the client/subject happy, others make photographs to please themselves or for more of a documentary. BTW, the only woman I ever photographed who did not care for the way she looked was Annsan. She's refused permission to show what is by all accounts (a few people saw it before Ann's edict) the best portrait I'd ever done until that time. IMO, it's beautiful, showing Ann's character, personality, softness, and vulnerability. She thinks it just shows a haggard old woman who looks tired and bedraggled. So, Paul, it comes down to the immortal words written Rick Nelson in his song, garden party, "If you can't please everyone you might as well please yourself." ;-)) And now I'm outta here. Cheers Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/29/2004 11:39:10 AM > Subject: Re: Street Portraiture > > > On May 29, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Bob W wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps I was born lucky, but none of the women I've known well would > > like to be portrayed like this. > > > > > > I enjoy shooting women and do so quite frequently. I have yet to meet > one who wants to be pictured with zits in place. > Paul
Re: OT - Request for GFM attendee
> > Hi All, > > I have a request for anyone attending GFM and who would like to receive a > pot of genuine Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade as a gratuity for the > following: > > I would like to buy 3 very simple items, namely some steel insulated > Thermos bottles of the kind I can't get in the UK. I have found a store > that has them all in stock and will do FedEx or UPS 2-day or even > overnight shipping (I know it's a holiday weekend in the USA). The three > items come to about 85 bucks plus shipping, so it's going to be over $100 > or so. > > I daren't ask the people that have so generously donated their time and > space already, and this does involve going to a web site and ordering > using a debit or credit card. > > If anyone would like to help me out, I would of course be very grateful, > and will reimburse, in cash, in full at GFM, *plus* a star prize of a jar > of marmalade. Stop laughing. > > Please contact me off list at > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Many thanks, Pity we didn't know about this earlier, or I could have just paid for these for you instead of trying to find my UK chequebook, a stamp, ...
Re: GFM coming together
On 5/29/04 2:14 PM, "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Counting regulars and lurkers, > looks like somewhere between 20 and 30 PDML'ers will be together in less > than a week. I'm looking forward to meeting all of the newcomers and > getting reacquainted with the regulars. Hi all GFM participants, Thank you for deserting us. It is a duty of all of you to report us what's going on over there by both posting here and images, so that those of us who were sadly deserted by you can still feel the atmosphere and comradery there. We are all proud of so many PDML'ers come together and acquaint themselves each other. Only in PDML? Me? Perhaps next year ;-). Have fun and enjoy yourself! Cheers, Ken
Re: Street Portraiture
On May 29, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Bob W wrote: Perhaps I was born lucky, but none of the women I've known well would like to be portrayed like this. I enjoy shooting women and do so quite frequently. I have yet to meet one who wants to be pictured with zits in place. Paul
Re: OT: Builders, was - It's here (A 15mm f/3.5)
Hi, Saturday, May 29, 2004, 3:24:24 PM, Malcolm wrote: > My parents had builders in for nearly a year [...] Whenever I hear the word > builders, the phrase 'lock & > load' comes to mind. I knew someone in a similar position, who contracted a builder to do his whole house, which was very big. The builder started everything at the same time, then pissed around, continually jacking up his prices and making my friend's life a misery. He couldn't sack him because no other builder would take on the task of sorting out such a huge mess. The lesson I learned from watching it is simple. Only contract for small amounts at a time, so you can sack them without much difficulty. Let them know that the reward for good work is more work. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Street Portraiture
Hi, Saturday, May 29, 2004, 4:43:06 PM, Shel wrote: > Paul, > You've created something that does not exist. IMO, that's not a portrait > but a work of art, a creation. The work is good, the woman looks good, > but, imo, agreeing with Peter, some of her character is gone. I think, as a > portrait, you overdid the Photoshop work. If this were to be for a > magazine ad, I'd proffer high praise. The people in magazine ads are often > portrayed as "perfect examples of humankind," with flaws, wrinkles, and > anomalies removed so as to create a fantasy for the viewer. But this is a > portrait, and it should show more of the real person, Imo. > I think we'll just have to disagree on the merits of the final result with > me giving strong praise for your Photoshop skills. > Shel Belinkoff I agree with Shel's position on this. The photograph is not to my taste at all. But what's interesting is the number of people who've written things like "I know your subject would like this" or "it flatters your subject", without having seen the subject or asked her what she thinks. Perhaps I was born lucky, but none of the women I've known well would like to be portrayed like this. 'Stepford Wives' springs to mind. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: the pile
That looks about as tidy as the flat I lived in until three years ago. Now my garage looks like that tom wrote: The pile reached maximum mass yesterday - http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. I thought you should know. tv
GFM coming together
When I started talking up the GFM NPW last year, I had no idea it would turn out as well as it has. Tanya is already in the US, Jostein, and I would guess, Adelheid are on their way. The homebrew is iced down in the cooler and a taste test of each variety seems okay. Counting regulars and lurkers, looks like somewhere between 20 and 30 PDML'ers will be together in less than a week. I'm looking forward to meeting all of the newcomers and getting reacquainted with the regulars. Bill
Re: OT - Request for GFM attendee
Hi, Cotty wrote: I would like to buy 3 very simple items, namely some steel insulated Thermos bottles of the kind I can't get in the UK. What sort would they be? I am curious. mike
Re: Short Optio S4 review
What was it I said that makes you believe I'm offended in some way? Quite simply, my opinions are in opposition to yours. It has nothing to do with you, per se. We each look at the Optio S4 thru different filters... I don't see a problem there. Thanks BE for differing opinions -- or all cameras would operate the same, and there'd be no variety! No offense taken, Mark. keith whaley Mark Dalal wrote: From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In initially, I had an entirely different idea of what I was going to say, but after cogitating on your message content for a while I'll leave it at this... This camera was not conceived as a replacement for a Leica M-series camera, nor was it meant to compete in such company. You seem disappointed it's not. I'm sorry for offending you. It's a great camera and I'm glad you're happy with it. Regards, Mark
Kastrup -- in transit to GFM
Hi, gang. Greetings from Kastrup airport, Copenhagen. I left Oslo at 17:30 EST today, and right now I'm stuck at the gate on Kastrup, waiting for clearance to board the flight across the Atlantic. We're already 20 minutes late...:-( Information told us it's just a minor technical checkout, so hopefully we're off soon. On the flight from Oslo I sat beside two young fellas also going to NYC, albeit without a Pentax in teir luggage. They're good company, though, so it looks like I'll have no problem at all passing time in the air. The next post is hopefully from American soil. Cheers, Jostein
Re: Street Portraiture
Shel said: > Paul, > > You've created something that does not exist. IMO, that's not a portrait > but a work of art, a creation. The work is good, the woman looks good, > but, imo, agreeing with Peter, some of her character is gone. I think, as a > portrait, you overdid the Photoshop work. If this were to be for a > magazine ad, I'd proffer high praise. The people in magazine ads are often > portrayed as "perfect examples of humankind," with flaws, wrinkles, and > anomalies removed so as to create a fantasy for the viewer. But this is a > portrait, and it should show more of the real person, Imo. > > I think we'll just have to disagree on the merits of the final result with > me giving strong praise for your Photoshop skills. So why don't we just agree to call it a "Glamour Shot"? ERN
the pile
The pile reached maximum mass yesterday - http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/pile2.jpg Tanya arrived today and was able to reduce it's size. I thought you should know. tv
Re: Short Optio S4 review
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In initially, I had an entirely different idea of what I was going to > say, but after cogitating on your message content for a while I'll > leave it at this... > This camera was not conceived as a replacement for a Leica M-series > camera, nor was it meant to compete in such company. > You seem disappointed it's not. I'm sorry for offending you. It's a great camera and I'm glad you're happy with it. Regards, Mark
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The photographer we had was more like your middle description. On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera editing or lazy. Sorry, you touched a nerve. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:07:00 AM, you wrote: g> Interestingly enough, this goes hand in hand with something I was just thinking g> about the other night. g> Years ago (1950's - early 60's) a standard wedding package was 10-12 B&W 8x10 in g> an album. The photographer usually shot 1.5 to 2x that many negatives, but hoped g> some of those would sell as extras. In other words they shot pretty close to 1:1. g> Back in the late 80's early 90's a wedding photographer usually shot 3 rolls of g> 35mm (108 shots), or 5-6 rolls of 120 (50-72 shots). Gave the client the best g> 30-50 as proof to pick from. A ratio of about 3:1. g> Now the wedding guys on the list, are say they are shooting 600-800 shots per g> wedding. You give the customer (who most likely can not tell a decent shot from g> an awful one) hundreds of images to select from on a computer. If the photog g> dumped the junk there may be 100 actually sellable photos in the batch. 8:1. g> So what is my point? Well, first I think that they are still getting about 24 g> keepers. The difference is the early photograpers edited in the camera. A lot of g> current photographers (and I am talking about commerical photographers here) do g> not seem know how to edit their work at all. g> How does this connect to Bill's comments below. Simply put, it was not cheap to g> shoot, so that early photographer was carful to shoot only sellable photos. He g> edited out the others before tripping the shutter. g> -- g> William Robb wrote: >> - Original Message - >> From: "Mark Cassino" >> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners >> >> >> >>>I'd bet that same school teaches kids writing with pencils and >> >> paper. >> >>>That's a shame. Real writing is done with reeds on clay tablets. >> >> People may >> >>>try to write using pencils, paper, pens, typewriters, or even word >>>processors or computers. But do you really think that they could >> >> possibly >> >>>express the same thoughts that they could express with clay tablets >> >> and >> >>>reeds? Obviously not. If they really want to express themselves, >> >> clay >> >>>tablets and reeds are the only way. (Of course, if they want to be >>>published, they should scan the clay tablets in a format suitable >> >> for >> >>>computerized typesetting.) >> >> >> I realize that this is written with tongue firmly in cheek, but think >> of this: >> >> If you really have to work at putting those word
Re: GFM weather
> > >City folk! Sunrise down here was 6:11am today. It will be a few minutes > >earlier > >in a week, plus it is even earlier (probably about 5:30am) on top the > >mountain > >(horizon is lower). So you better start practicing getting up at 4:30am. > > I just remembered why I like shooting people so much... Sleeping is much more fun than watching a sunrise. Bill
Re: GFM weather
I knew that, silly - I'm tapering. :) I have to get up at least by 6 on Tues to get my train and bus. (I mean, I knew sunrise wasn't at 7 am!. harumph) Not only that, but I'll have you know I watch Weather Channel so there:) a graywolf wrote: > > City folk! Sunrise down here was 6:11am today. It will be a few minutes earlier > in a week, plus it is even earlier (probably about 5:30am) on top the mountain > (horizon is lower). So you better start practicing getting up at 4:30am. > > -- > > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > > > annsan > > it's 7 am... I'm practicing getting up early to > > race Roberts to the summit for the sunrise > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: GFM weather
>City folk! Sunrise down here was 6:11am today. It will be a few minutes >earlier >in a week, plus it is even earlier (probably about 5:30am) on top the >mountain >(horizon is lower). So you better start practicing getting up at 4:30am. I just remembered why I like shooting people so much... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: PAW: "Mount John"
David, The slide may be better, but the scan certainly gives us a serene, peaceful feeling. This is beautiful! The only minor nagging thing for me is the horizon is about evenly split - I wonder if just a touch more foreground would have been even better - that being said, this is a wonderful image that I would be ever so proud to have made. Well done! Bruce Saturday, May 29, 2004, 2:01:17 AM, you wrote: DM> Hi all, DM> I'm not really satisfied with the scan but its too late to do another DM> one :) DM> http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=29-May-2004 DM> Cheers, DM> - Dave DM> http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
OT - Request for GFM attendee
Hi All, I have a request for anyone attending GFM and who would like to receive a pot of genuine Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade as a gratuity for the following: I would like to buy 3 very simple items, namely some steel insulated Thermos bottles of the kind I can't get in the UK. I have found a store that has them all in stock and will do FedEx or UPS 2-day or even overnight shipping (I know it's a holiday weekend in the USA). The three items come to about 85 bucks plus shipping, so it's going to be over $100 or so. I daren't ask the people that have so generously donated their time and space already, and this does involve going to a web site and ordering using a debit or credit card. If anyone would like to help me out, I would of course be very grateful, and will reimburse, in cash, in full at GFM, *plus* a star prize of a jar of marmalade. Stop laughing. Please contact me off list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Street Portraiture
On May 29, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I think we'll just have to disagree on the merits of the final result with me giving strong praise for your Photoshop skills. Shel Belinkoff Thanks Shel. I'll take that. All we really disagree about is the definition of the word "portrait." To me, it can mean any number of things, but most often it's a creation. A photo that tries to capture the essence of a person is journalism in my book. But, hey, I'm an ad guy . Paul
RE: PAW: Street Portraiture
Thanks, Paul. You are right, I might do this. I am waiting for 4 x 24 Superia, I took with my MZ-S with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm (not this girl, though). The MZ-S has very fast AF, so, hopefully there's a much higher "succes-rate", when it comes to sharpness - than form mys rather slow SONY autofocus. I'll make sure to post some next week. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. maj 2004 17:35 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: PAW: Street Portraiture Beautiful girl, and I love the framing. When you have a lot of time on your hands you might want to clone out the people you can see through the holes in her headdress. Then again, since it's a carnival crowd, you might not. I'm a bit torn on that. Thanks for the comment on my photo. Paul On May 29, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > > Here's annother street photograph: > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html > > Jens > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 29. maj 2004 12:56 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: PAW: Street Portraiture > > > I hope she'll get a copy as well. She scribbled her e-mail address on a > piece of paper, but so far I've been unable to decipher it. I shoot in > Birmingham quite a bit, so perhaps I'll run into her again. I'd like to > do a session with her. She knows how to take direction and is > comfortable with the camera. > Paul > On May 29, 2004, at 5:51 AM, Keith Whaley wrote: > >> I hope she'll get a copy... >> In spite of Shel's comments, I think it's the sort of image that all >> her friends will Ooo and Ahhh over, and tell her "That's really YOU! >> What a great shot!" >> She'll love it, and frame it. >> So will her mum... >> >> keith whaley >> >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> She was flattered. She had seen my camera and didn't turn away, so it >>> was obviously a good opportunity to request a shot. She posed quite >>> enthusiastically. >>> Paul >>> On May 28, 2004, at 10:53 PM, graywolf wrote: Nice, Paul. That takes guts to do. Though thinking back to when I did things like that, they usually are more flattered than put out. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: > Once in awhile I'll stop someone on the street and ask them if I > can shoot a portrait there on the spot. I found this lady earlier > today, knocked off two frames of her in front of a blue wall, > PhotoShoped her around a bit, and here she is: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2397401&size=lg > Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html >> > > >
Re: It's here
- Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" Subject: Re: It's here > I'm surprised they even bother with a focus ring on that one. What the > hyperfocal distance at 3.5? > At f/3.5, about 2 meters. At f/8, 1 meter. At f/22 about .4 meters. William Robb
Re: It's here
I'm surprised they even bother with a focus ring on that one. What the hyperfocal distance at 3.5? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: "David Miers" Subject: RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > You have got to admit the lack > of worries in ambient lighting for color temp is great though! I don't admit that one can ignore the colour temperature of light with black and white. William Robb
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I found B & W to be very frustrating in college too, as I too am very color oriented. But towards the end of the course it started to rub off on me or something, because I started looking at images differently, even choosing B & W as the preferred medium for some images. You have got to admit the lack of worries in ambient lighting for color temp is great though! Dave -- Marnie aka Doe I did a semester of darkroom in college and didn't enjoy it that much. OTOH, I also shot in B&W for that class too and didn't like that much either (being very color oriented). So it's not a love affair for everyone. ;-)
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > > But I beg to differ that the digital darkroom approach provides INSTANT > gratification. Not if you really tweak stuff and are a perfectionist. That can take > hours and hours, in fact. > > All things are relative. The digital perfectionist who takes hours to tweak an image in Photoshop would as likely take many more hours (I have spent as long as 30 hours and several dozen sheets of paper) to maximize the quality from a negative. By that standard, digital is instant gratification no matter what level of work you are doing. William Robb
Re: It's here (A 15mm f/3.5)
- Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" Subject: Re: It's here > That's a big honker, isn't it! > Weighs 1 1/3 lbs, and the front element is huge! > And I'm only looking at Pentax' catalog. I've never seen one in person. Odd looking lens. It looks for all the world like a 50mm lens with a humongous wide angle lens adaptor on the front. > > > > I will probably take some boring pictures of my reno... > > Uhhh, is that where you live? If not, what's a 'reno?' I am in the process of renovating my house (still). We started a year ago almost to the day, and are finally getting close to being at least close to completion. > > Since you deigned to mention it (your 'list') care to elaborate? > > Anyhow, you bet! I'd like to see some shots taken with that 15mm... > I have been sending updates via email, with picture links posted on a semi irregular basis to people who have expressed an interest in seeing what people do to make their lives miserable. Sometimes you even get a world class rant, such as the one when the lazy rat bastard we hired to do the job screwed us and walked off the job site. I'll add you to the list if you like. Or if you don't like for that matter. I just did. William Robb
Re: I'm outta here...
On 28/5/04, TAN, discombobulated, offered: >hehe, I am boarding my plane to DC right now - Tornado Tan is on its way! > >(more like "Slight Breeze Tan is on it's way" as I don't have much "gust" >about me - I am SO exhausted! > >I need slep, and some vegemite toast... > >tan. Storm Force Ten in Area Leesburg Pike, Imminent. That is the end of the severe weather warning. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: June PUG comments
On 28/5/04, HOW MANY PHYSICISTS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB, discombobulated, offered: >Hmmm, most of this month's submissions are far too good to be clichés in >my opinion :-) > >A few that caught my eye: > >Jaume Lahuerta, "Big Ben" - ok, so maybe there *are* no original shots >of the Houses of Parliament, but that's a damn good try :-) > >Frank Theriault, "Your Humble Servant" - nice cliché, and you've >thoughtfully obscured your phiz behind a dirty great lens... ;-) > >Bruce Dayton, "Camping" - possibly my favourite this month. > >Ray Ford, "Sunset at Sagamore Bridge" - wins the "best cliché" award >imo, and is a nice sunset to boot. > >Cotty, "Kept" - is that a feather in your cap? :-) Thanks Steve. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Cliche Month
>Great PUG. Thanks, Adelheid. > >Sorry folks, but I cannot tell much difference between the entries for >cliché month and most other months. I think it's time to end the cliché >theme. > >Joe LOL!!! Come on Joe, don't mince your words now ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Speaking of music....GFM
On 28/5/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, offered: >> > I'll be bringing a few CD's for us old farts. Kingston Trio and Peter, >Paul >> > and Mary amongst others. >> > >> > Bill >> >> Bill, do you have an actual old fashioned cassette >> player??? >> >> ann Never mind the cassettes Ann, bring your 78s ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: GFM weather
>> There's an excellent hiking/outdoors shop called Footsloggers near GFM. >> Their official t-shirt has the motto -- > "Hike naked, it puts color in your cheeks". > > Surely that can't be good for their "bottom line" Unless seen under a full moon. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: last call for June 3rd PDML meeting
Cotty wrote: > > On 27/5/04, tv, discombobulated, offered: > > > Oh I'll be there. Amazing what a call to an airline's PR dept can do if > the press are travelling! > > Cheers, > Cotty > So you are um pressed for time? annsan (ducking under the keyboard)
Re: GFM weather
Mark Roberts wrote: > > "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Mark Roberts wrote: > > > >> There's an excellent hiking/outdoors shop called Footsloggers near GFM. > >> Their official t-shirt has the motto -- > > "Hike naked, it puts color in your cheeks". > > > > Surely that can't be good for their "bottom line" > > True. It also makes them the butt of a lot of jokes. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com God, you guys are as bad as me! Naked hikers are asked not to eat Bill's chili annsan it's 7 am... I'm practicing getting up early to race Roberts to the summit for the sunrise
Re: PAW: Street Portraiture
I hope she'll get a copy as well. She scribbled her e-mail address on a piece of paper, but so far I've been unable to decipher it. I shoot in Birmingham quite a bit, so perhaps I'll run into her again. I'd like to do a session with her. She knows how to take direction and is comfortable with the camera. Paul On May 29, 2004, at 5:51 AM, Keith Whaley wrote: I hope she'll get a copy... In spite of Shel's comments, I think it's the sort of image that all her friends will Ooo and Ahhh over, and tell her "That's really YOU! What a great shot!" She'll love it, and frame it. So will her mum... keith whaley Paul Stenquist wrote: She was flattered. She had seen my camera and didn't turn away, so it was obviously a good opportunity to request a shot. She posed quite enthusiastically. Paul On May 28, 2004, at 10:53 PM, graywolf wrote: Nice, Paul. That takes guts to do. Though thinking back to when I did things like that, they usually are more flattered than put out. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: Once in awhile I'll stop someone on the street and ask them if I can shoot a portrait there on the spot. I found this lady earlier today, knocked off two frames of her in front of a blue wall, PhotoShoped her around a bit, and here she is: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2397401&size=lg Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: PAW: "Mount John"
Very pretty. The scan looks good on my monitor, perhaps a tad more brightness would help. Paul On May 29, 2004, at 5:01 AM, David Mann wrote: Hi all, I'm not really satisfied with the scan but its too late to do another one :) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=29-May-2004 Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Street Portraiture
Here's an out of the camera version: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2398341&size=lg That, to me, is simply a snapshot. It's not a portrait. When I shoot a portrait, I try to make the subject as attractive as possible, using every tool at my disposal. Paul On May 29, 2004, at 1:34 AM, Jim Apilado wrote: Beautiful lady. However, what did she look like before you manipulated her image? Jim A. From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 21:16:29 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Street Portraiture Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 21:34:17 -0400 Once in awhile I'll stop someone on the street and ask them if I can shoot a portrait there on the spot. I found this lady earlier today, knocked off two frames of her in front of a blue wall, PhotoShoped her around a bit, and here she is: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2397401&size=lg Paul
Re: GFM weather
Hi, >> >>> There's an excellent hiking/outdoors shop called Footsloggers near GFM. >>> Their official t-shirt has the motto -- >> "Hike naked, it puts color in your cheeks". >> >> Surely that can't be good for their "bottom line" > True. It also makes them the butt of a lot of jokes. 'Boots only' hiking is quite popular in the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1012335,00.html Never tried it myself. I don't have the right equipment. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: It's here
That's a big honker, isn't it! Weighs 1 1/3 lbs, and the front element is huge! And I'm only looking at Pentax' catalog. I've never seen on in person. William Robb wrote: A couple of months ago, I enabled myself with an A15mm f/3.5. It arrived today. I suspect that Pentax had to make it just for me, judging by the delivery time. It seems like a nice lens. VERY wide angle, big honking piece of glass. Funky metal lens cap that sez Asahi Pentax on it, which is cool, in a retro sort of way. The build on the one I got is absolutely top notch. No rattles, nice aperture and focus feel. I will probably take some boring pictures of my reno... Uhhh, is that where you live? If not, what's a 'reno?' ...over the weekend (for those on my mailing list, expect another update soon) and post them sometime next week. William Robb Since you deigned to mention it (your 'list') care to elaborate? Anyhow, you bet! I'd like to see some shots taken with that 15mm... keith whaley
Re: GFM weather
"Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> There's an excellent hiking/outdoors shop called Footsloggers near GFM. >> Their official t-shirt has the motto -- > "Hike naked, it puts color in your cheeks". > > Surely that can't be good for their "bottom line" True. It also makes them the butt of a lot of jokes. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW: Street Portraiture
I hope she'll get a copy... In spite of Shel's comments, I think it's the sort of image that all her friends will Ooo and Ahhh over, and tell her "That's really YOU! What a great shot!" She'll love it, and frame it. So will her mum... keith whaley Paul Stenquist wrote: She was flattered. She had seen my camera and didn't turn away, so it was obviously a good opportunity to request a shot. She posed quite enthusiastically. Paul On May 28, 2004, at 10:53 PM, graywolf wrote: Nice, Paul. That takes guts to do. Though thinking back to when I did things like that, they usually are more flattered than put out. -- Paul Stenquist wrote: Once in awhile I'll stop someone on the street and ask them if I can shoot a portrait there on the spot. I found this lady earlier today, knocked off two frames of her in front of a blue wall, PhotoShoped her around a bit, and here she is: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2397401&size=lg Paul -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: I'm outta here...
Tanya Mayer wrote: hehe, I am boarding my plane to DC right now - Tornado Tan is on its way! (more like "Slight Breeze Tan is on it's way" as I don't have much "gust" about me - I am SO exhausted! I need slep, and some vegemite toast... tan. How'd the concert go? I gather you stayed out too late, and really enjoyed yourself! Oh, and unless you're on Qantas, I don't think you'll be offered any vegemite! keith [...]
PAW: "Mount John"
Hi all, I'm not really satisfied with the scan but its too late to do another one :) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=29-May-2004 Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
In a message dated 5/28/2004 11:59:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, some folks spend a long time on their photo work, but I'll bet that, had they used a darkroom previously, they spent a long time there, too, in order to get a print just right. And regardless of what work one does with editing software, the pic can be viewed on the screen and printed in less than five minutes from the time the exposure is made. And that includes boot up time Shel Belinkoff --- Okay, operating from that premise... And what's wrong with that? LOL. Marnie aka Doe I did a semester of darkroom in college and didn't enjoy it that much. OTOH, I also shot in B&W for that class too and didn't like that much either (being very color oriented). So it's not a love affair for everyone. ;-)
RE: Street Portraiture
Paul Stenquist wrote: > Her eyes drew me in. But I did enhance them a bit in PS. (See > above.) However, the color was there, and the wall was a good match. > Paul The skill is there to make an excellent picture. Will you do the same for a certain 50 year old next year? That will certainly require some suitable photographs! Malcolm
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Marnie & Shel, > Digital photography can provide instant gratification. One > of the most often heard comments here and in other places is > that people like the idea of seeing their photos immediately. Sure. Taking pictures of books or whatever for eBay or pictures which may be far from technical wonders, but capture the moment to be sent to relatives or whoever by e-mail for immediate reaction. > They can edit on the LCD display immediately after the photo > is taken. Moving to the "darkroom" side of the equation, a > great many people do little or no editing of their photos, > small tweaks at most, such as cropping, a little color > correction, and that's about it. Instant! More advanced > folks use more features in their editing software, but still > don't go very far into it. And a skilled PS user can get a > good result in less time than it'll take to set up the > darkroom for a printing session and make some prints. This is the artist coming out in you, Shel. People who will go this far have digital SLRs. The huge bulk of sales to P & S digital cameras, who will take the same crappy pictures with their fingers over the lens as they did with film. They will just get the results quicker. Those who do try PS without the camera skills in place will produce enhanced crap. > Yeah, some folks spend a long time on their photo work, but > I'll bet that, had they used a darkroom previously, they > spent a long time there, too, in order to get a print just > right. And regardless of what work one does with editing > software, the pic can be viewed on the screen and printed in > less than five minutes from the time the exposure is made. > And that includes boot up time On the skill of folk on PDML, yes - they are great photographers and will go that extra mile. Everybody else sees film as hassle and digital as the new Polaroid. Malcolm
