Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
On Feb 21, 2006, at 12:20 PM, frank theriault wrote: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm Looks like something I might have shot. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's a compliment or not. FWIW, I think it's pretty cool. :-) Thanks Frank! Godfrey
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
On 2/12/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had my head down into working some projects lately and not been > posting many pictures. Been working on a couple of new ideas ... > > This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic > LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to > obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more > banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much > ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total > saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) > >http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm > > Comments always appreciated. Looks like something I might have shot. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's a compliment or not. FWIW, I think it's pretty cool. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Hi! I'm lost here, not quite sure what I'm looking at. A fence with reflectors? Doesn't do much for me. Ditto... Boris
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Not to my eye ... but then, similar is open to wide interpretation. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Tri-X at 6400 stand developed in Rodina loosk similar too. > > I do love that look though. > > -Adam > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >Hi Godders, > > > >It's clear to me what you're trying to do. Maybe that's because I've done > >similar things with film (often with Kodak's 2475 Recording Film) developed > >in Acufine.
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Tri-X at 6400 stand developed in Rodina loosk similar too. I do love that look though. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Godders, It's clear to me what you're trying to do. Maybe that's because I've done similar things with film (often with Kodak's 2475 Recording Film) developed in Acufine. It's not too important what the structure is, although it might have been nice to know. I'd like to see the print when we next get together. BTW, I read the other comments in the thread, but stopped short of your reply ... didn't want to "taint" my response to the original post ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I've had my head down into working some projects lately and not been posting many pictures. Been working on a couple of new ideas ... This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm Comments always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey I really like this one, but I've got a distinct soft spot for low-light semi-abstract work, especially with a bit of grain involved. -Adam
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Thanks Shel. Godfrey On Feb 12, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Godders, It's clear to me what you're trying to do. Maybe that's because I've done similar things with film (often with Kodak's 2475 Recording Film) developed in Acufine. It's not too important what the structure is, although it might have been nice to know. I'd like to see the print when we next get together. BTW, I read the other comments in the thread, but stopped short of your reply ... didn't want to "taint" my response to the original post ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm
RE: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Hi Godders, It's clear to me what you're trying to do. Maybe that's because I've done similar things with film (often with Kodak's 2475 Recording Film) developed in Acufine. It's not too important what the structure is, although it might have been nice to know. I'd like to see the print when we next get together. BTW, I read the other comments in the thread, but stopped short of your reply ... didn't want to "taint" my response to the original post ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic > LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to > obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more > banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much > ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total > saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) > >http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:47 AM, John Forbes wrote: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm I suspect that this is one of those pictures that looks great in print, but not so hot on screen. Yes, thank you for your comment. What it's a picture of is my apartment building. But that's not really the point. I was looking to express the particular "air" or feel one experiences when on a dark night's walk. The 8x10 inch print is full of deep tones and subtle gradations that are difficult to express in a web-rez rendering. Go ahead, savage away if you feel you must. ;-) Godfrey
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
I suspect that this is one of those pictures that looks great in print, but not so hot on screen. John On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:36:43 -, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/12/06, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Parking garage?... Can you give us a clue what you're trying to do? ...before we savage the effort. Regards, Bob I've already had my say. :-) Dave -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
On 2/12/06, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Parking garage?... > Can you give us a clue what you're trying to do? > ...before we savage the effort. > Regards, Bob I've already had my say. :-) Dave
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Kinda looks like a block of apartments to me. I don't mean to be rude, but that looks like something taken with a camera phone in B&W mode. Dave On 2/12/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had my head down into working some projects lately and not been > posting many pictures. Been working on a couple of new ideas ... > > This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic > LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to > obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more > banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much > ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total > saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) > >http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm > > Comments always appreciated. > > enjoy > Godfrey > >
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
Parking garage?... Can you give us a clue what you're trying to do? ...before we savage the effort. Regards, Bob S. On 2/12/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm lost here, not quite sure what I'm looking at. A fence with > reflectors? Doesn't do much for me. > Paul > On Feb 12, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > I've had my head down into working some projects lately and not been > > posting many pictures. Been working on a couple of new ideas ... > > > > This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic > > LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to > > obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more > > banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much > > ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total > > saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) > > > > http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm > > > > Comments always appreciated. > > > > enjoy > > Godfrey > > > >
Re: OT: PAW 2006 - 01 - GDG
I'm lost here, not quite sure what I'm looking at. A fence with reflectors? Doesn't do much for me. Paul On Feb 12, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I've had my head down into working some projects lately and not been posting many pictures. Been working on a couple of new ideas ... This photo was taken hand-held with my pocket camera, the Panasonic LX1. It's an ISO 200 shot, mostly pretty hideously underexposed to obtain a very "rough" look. The web page version shows rather more banding than the print does, though: the print is very rich, so much ink it took nearly 5 hours to dry down properly. I think I hit total saturation on the Epson Enhanced Matte paper! ;-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/01.htm Comments always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey
