On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:14:13 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> General comment, Frank.
>
> BTW, do you still wear that white wig when checking out the list?
Nah, just the bunny ears, and even then not so often as I used to.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -He
General comment, Frank.
BTW, do you still wear that white wig when checking out the list?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
frank theriault wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I ha
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change
> the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of "grip and grin"
> photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of
I do actually agree with what you (and Shel) are saying. My point was
that a time comes when what you do to a picture is no longer an
improvement but a new picture. When that point is reached is of course
very subjective, which is what gave rise to this discussion. I actually
liked what
I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning
of the photo evil? How about those millions of "grip and grin" photos your have
seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie.
Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But the
Sorry if I got my facts slightly wrong, Frank. There were so many
responses/versions I rather lost track.
But, hell, why let the facts get in the way of a good discussion?
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:42:24 -0500, frank theriault
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:56:19 -,
> Well, thanks ... but as was pointed
out in another message, it doesn't
tell
> the whole story that I think Frank was trying to convey (F and I were
> talking off list). However, I did another fiddle last night that I sent to
> Frank directly as it was lat
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:56:19 -, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He [frank] was (politely) taken to task by Bob W (I think) for having a
> rather prominent sign in the picture (and a speck!). Both were
> unnecessary to the picture, and were toned down or removed in later
> versions. So
My comments interspersed:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:13:40 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I tend to agree with you, there are a few points that may merit
more
discussion.
First, as to my Photoshop skills - they really are rudimentary. To call
them "superior" in any way su
P.S. That is not to say, frank, (see my previous comments re this pic, where
forehead was specifically mentioned) that I think out-of-focus works every
time. Because I still think "Taking the Bloor Train Home" was one of your best
shots to date.
IMHO, standard disclaimers re just my opinion, gr
In a message dated 3/19/2005 1:33:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is not so any more, Marnie. You have learned a little something over the
past few years (grin). However being new sometimes allows a fresh way of
looking at photos. What Shel proposes is the age old way
While I tend to agree with you, there are a few points that may merit more
discussion.
First, as to my Photoshop skills - they really are rudimentary. To call
them "superior" in any way surprises me, although I have to admit feeling
OK about it ;-)) Oh, I don't see presenting your interpretation
That is not so any more, Marnie. You have learned a little something over the past
few years (grin). However being new sometimes allows a fresh way of looking at
photos. What Shel proposes is the age old way of eliminating distracting
backgrounds in B&W photography. In this case it would probabl
"Element that" should of course read "that element".
J
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:58:57 -, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shel,
I actually liked Frank's original framing of this picture, and wouldn't
wish to change it. It works for me. I think that you, with your
superior Photoshop sk
Shel,
I actually liked Frank's original framing of this picture, and wouldn't
wish to change it. It works for me. I think that you, with your superior
Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the "presentation" of
the image (if that's a suitable word) to produce an excellent final
Well, thanks ... but as was pointed out in another message, it doesn't tell
the whole story that I think Frank was trying to convey (F and I were
talking off list). However, I did another fiddle last night that I sent to
Frank directly as it was late and I was tired and cranky, and didn't feel
lik
In a message dated 3/19/2005 10:00:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic2.html
There are certainly many ways to interpret a scene.
Shel
=
Now that looks good! ;-)
Without losing either guy. I felt frank had the shot in there
Why don't you present your version and we can see how it looks. There's a
balance between information, information that's implied, and the overall
balance and symmetry in a photograph itself that sometimes has to be
maintained.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: John Forbes
> This version ce
This version certainly gives the picture a lot more more ooomph, but for
my taste the crop on the guitarist is too tight. It's that right arm
that's making the music, and if we can't see it, the guy becomes rather
irrelevant. This is a pity, because although he may not be in focus, to
me
I agree with you, Marnie.
Shel's version makes for a more powerful image, but the orginal told more
of a story, which I think was the point here.
And I like the OOF guy, too.
John
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 03:33:51 EST, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 3/18/2005 4:26:59 PM Pacific Standa
Hi Shel
a good crop and adjustment of the original, I like the photo this way.
greetings
Markus
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 3:52 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTE
In a message dated 3/18/2005 4:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780&size=lg
I sort of felt stupid for saying I liked after seeing others' reactions. But
taking a second look, nope, going against the stream, I still
Frank:
It's definitely more interesting. Perhaps I feel that way because the
trumpeter's eyes are visible to the viewer and to the audience, whereas
the guitarist seems more absorbed in what he's doing.
Next time, you might want to try getting some shots with the musicians
interacting with the
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic.html
My first thought about an interpretation of your pic.
Shel
I'd love to help you out Frank. Which way did y'come in?
Better, but it's still a boring shot. Lighting adds nothing to the pic. I
can see having gotten a little mote "oomph" by exposing for the highlights,
letting the background go much darker (which might also get rid of, and
certainly reduc
frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780&size=lg
Much nicer than the first one.
I really like the look of effort on the trumpet player's face.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
In a message dated 3/18/2005 4:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780&size=lg
What do you think? Is it a bit more interesting? Pretty much the
same old thing? Am I just barking up the wrong tree with this one?
I did tak
Well, the second is a better picture of the guitarist (or at least
more interesting). The look on the trumpeter's face is still not too
great. I'd say the second shot is an improvement overall.
Bruce
Friday, March 18, 2005, 4:25:37 PM, you wrote:
ft> Okay, ya gotta help me out here.
ft> A co
28 matches
Mail list logo
