Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
It has been replaced with a less shadow one now. I asked a few persons and they all think the new one is better. :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Nice shots there Alan! I particularly like 36 (some sunlight and I would like it even more- the weather feels overcast..)and 37 (very dramatic! though it would have been nice to see less shadow around where the flowers are. But I'm guessing you weren't carrying a giant reflector (or ND grads?)). I also love the colours and bokeh in 26, but would have preferred a different angle or a closer macro because the left seems a bit messy. Keep up the good work! _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
I have considered that too but I am still learning on how to present the pictures better. Guess I have to keep looking. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan First, the copyright notice is too big to my taste. _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out!
Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
Nice shots there Alan! I particularly like 36 (some sunlight and I would like it even more- the weather feels overcast..)and 37 (very dramatic! though it would have been nice to see less shadow around where the flowers are. But I'm guessing you weren't carrying a giant reflector (or ND grads?)). I also love the colours and bokeh in 26, but would have preferred a different angle or a closer macro because the left seems a bit messy. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete) http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/summer_time After many hours shooting, scanning, cropping, choosing editing, the gallery is finally ready. It costs me about 150exp on mostly RVP, some Reala Superia 100. The lack of shadow detail with RVP is particular troublesome, and Reala came to rescue for those shots. Still, I could only carry one body due to the weight, many extremely contrasty RVP shots could not be redone. On one hand, RVP scans are virtually noise free, but the lost of shadow detail is unacceptable and made some shots useless (Have DSLRs the same problem?). On the other hand, while Reala is able to solve this problem, heavy editing will result in lots of noise. So I have mixed feeling with both films. All comments are welcome. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
On 14 Sep 2004 at 20:47, Caveman wrote: Alan, I took a quick look there. Many great shots, they deserve some more viewing and commenting. But for now I have some quick observations to make. First, the copyright notice is too big to my taste. Second, don't make such a fuss about shadows highlights whatsoever. It's the whole of the image that counts. Details like that are for old farts to nitpick about. I don't bother with them unless they are too distracting. If you remember Dario's street musicians shot, I was quite amazed that the only thing that someone commented was burned higlights on her arm. Gosh I even didn't look with much attention there, I was looking at her face and the general attitude/posture of her body. Technical and subjective aspects of an image can be commented upon independently and negative technicalities don't necessarily mean that an image is a write off. Suggestions that could lead to a better shot technically surely shouldn't be dismissed in favour of volumes of bloated and gratuitous praise? I always get suspicious when no one has anything bad to say about my images. 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
Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
Rob Studdert wrote: Technical and subjective aspects of an image can be commented upon independently and negative technicalities don't necessarily mean that an image is a write off. Suggestions that could lead to a better shot technically surely shouldn't be dismissed in favour of volumes of bloated and gratuitous praise? I can't see any volumes of bloated and gratuitous praise in my previous message. The idea is that I got sick of nitpicking. If the photographer decides to get a Velvia look to her/his image, he'll obviously get some dense shadows and/or nearly burned highlights (unless he's shooting graycards), aggravated by subsequent scanning. He knows that we know that so why mentioning it every time. I always get suspicious when no one has anything bad to say about my images. I'll make sure you won't ever get suspicious again ;-) cheers ! ;-)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
I agree. Nice shot. And the lens certainly managed the flare very well. Paul On Sep 14, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Caveman wrote: And here is my favorite: http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/33830849 Guess what it's the burned Velvia. Tame it with low contrast and saturation and it won't strike me.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Park gallery (complete)
On 14 Sep 2004 at 21:41, Caveman wrote: I can't see any volumes of bloated and gratuitous praise in my previous message. The idea is that I got sick of nitpicking. I wasn't referring to you post specifically, it was quite balanced, I was speaking generally, it seems to happen a lot. If the photographer decides to get a Velvia look to her/his image, he'll obviously get some dense shadows and/or nearly burned highlights (unless he's shooting graycards), aggravated by subsequent scanning. He knows that we know that so why mentioning it every time. You are assuming that the photographer is a aware of the problem, even I'm happy to have glaring technical problems pointed out once in a while. :-) I'll make sure you won't ever get suspicious again ;-) Honesty is a valuable commodity. 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
