[SI] Shoot-In "Unseen" Comments from Mardon

I can count two ways of interpreting "The Unseen" mandate: (1) the
unseen thing is in the fame but hard to notice unless you know it's
there, or (2) the unseen thing is not in the frame itself but is
still the main influence over what is in the frame. Al seems to
have chosen interpretation #1. Everyone else, including our
mandate creator Bret, followed interpretation #2. Glad to see I
wound up with the majority, even though I thought I wouldn't based
on the sample image that had been posted with the mandate.

Walter Banks
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931284
I love dogs, I love water, I love being in the out-of-doors, I have
hiked the Niagara portion of the Bruce Trail, plus my niece has a
Standard Schnauzer. You obviously have me on your side when it
comes to content! As for the image, I wonder what a polarizing
filter would have done to darken up the water surface and remove
some of that glare. I find the vast 'washed out' area at the top a
bit too distracting.

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931324
I'll guess that "floating furniture" is the 'unseen' part of this
photo? Too bad. No sump pumps in Massachusetts or was the power
off too? I like the composition, with the low viewpoint and the
wide lens. The running water in the foreground and the colours
help too. It works well. I never heard of those covers being
called a "bulkhead". You a Navy man by any chance?

Mardon Erbland
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931325
Yea, I know, I'm reviewing myself. This image is probably too
plain for many folks but I like simplicity. Geometrical shapes are
often part of my images. The great thing about photography as a
hobby is that you can compose your images however you want. No
clients to serve; just please yourself.

Rusty Shakleford.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931326
I figure it's almost 'cheating' to submit a photo of a child
(archived or not) to any photo challenge. How can a smiling child
(especially one with a dirty face) not be a winner? On the
technical side, I'd like the image sharper. Remember, I've
previously admitted to extremism when it comes to sharp images.
The shiny spot just above the right eye is a bit too noticeable
also.

Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931327
I love the look on the faces, the dog included. It's obvious that
something "unseen" is occupying their attention. Is that a splash
of water or some vegetation in the foreground? I suppose it could
be considered an 'artsy' effect but to me, it's more distracting
than artsy. I think that the man who is kneeling and the dog would
make an excellent close-up. The concentration on their faces is
superb.

Frank Sheffield
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931328
This photo taught me something about '50s car racing in California.
I had no idea who these two men were but I do now. Thanks for
that. I think that the third man detracts a bit from the image.
It's too bad that Guldstrand and Schilling weren't alone and
positioned a bit closer together, without that post in between
them. I'd also like the image sharper (I know, I'm sounding like a
broken record.)

Bret Douglas
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931329
I have to admit to being a fan of your "20D this and that..."
photos. I like this one too. Very nice. I like the bird being
just slightly off center and the way the foreground foliage blurs
most of the trunk. This complements well with the sharpness of the
feathers and the part of the trunk that can be seen. This is my
favorite of the bunch. [Aside to Bret: How do you clean your 20D
sensor? I also have a 20D and change lenses a lot. My macros at
f/32 are now unbelievably full of specks. The camera store is
adamant that I NOT use Pec Pads or swabs of any kind and wants me
to return the camera to Canon for cleaning. I got the camera this
past Christmas and am at 7,000 frames. I've tried a Hurricane
blower but it does virtually nothing. If I send the camera to
Canon, I figure it will be dirty again in a month and I'll have to
send it away again. What do you do? Others welcome to reply
also!]

Al Denelsbeck
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60935329
Good photo, as always. Kudos on being the only one to take
approach #1 to the mandate. I think the contrast in this image
seems a bit flat or maybe the image is slightly too bright. It
doesn't seem as 'rich' to me as I think it could be. Not sure why.

Mardon wrote:
I can count two ways of interpreting "The Unseen" mandate: (1) the

Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931327
I love the look on the faces, the dog included. It's obvious that
something "unseen" is occupying their attention. Is that a splash
of water or some vegetation in the foreground? I suppose it could
be considered an 'artsy' effect but to me, it's more distracting
than artsy. I think that the man who is kneeling and the dog would
make an excellent close-up. The concentration on their faces is
superb.

The distraction is a splash of water from a duck (the unseen) that just
landed about 40 yards from the dog and 20 from me.

This was a shot from a UKC HRC hunt test where I played event
photographer. More at
http://www.lookbefore.wading-in.net/...2006/index.htm
if you are so inclined.

In addition to the unseen element of the duck, I was "unseen" in
full camo, buried in the brush and reeds at the edge of the bank.

Thanks for commenting.

Sensor cleaning:
Can of compressed air, make sure you use short blasts, have the camera
body pointed down, and always fire the first blast away from the camera
to clear any fluid. The fluid can crack the sensor if it hits it.
If you can see the dust you can try to wipe it away with a dry cotton
Q-tip. Fluff up the end with your clean fingers and make sure that all
the stray fibers are wrapped up or cut off. Do not touch the flocking
or foam portions of the camera it will pull off the cotton fibers.
If that doesn't work you can use a Q-tip that has been slightly
wetted with an alcohol, 100% alcohol, not the stuff cut with water.
The goal is to pick up the dirt with one and dry it with a clean Q-tip,
don't just smear it around.

You are not actually cleaning the sensor, just a piece of glass on the
sensor.

Jim

"JimKramer" wrote:

The distraction is a splash of water from a duck (the unseen)
that just landed about 40 yards from the dog and 20 from me.

I kind of thought it looked like water but I couldn't imagine that
they were actually shooting toward you like that. I know the birds
were above you (until they got shot) but I'm still not sure I'd want
the guns pointed in my direction.

This was a shot from a UKC HRC hunt test where I played event
photographer. More at
http://www.lookbefore.wading-in.net/...0520-212006/in
dex.htm if you are so inclined.

Thanks for the link. My son has a Gordon Setter and loves to hunt
with it. Here in Newfoundland, there are no organized events like
you photographed but there's lots of space to hunt.

In addition to the unseen element of the duck, I was "unseen" in
full camo, buried in the brush and reeds at the edge of the
bank.

Must have been interesting.

Thanks for commenting.

My pleasure.

Sensor cleaning:

Thanks for the comments on sensor cleaning. I'm not sure why the
camera store guy is so adamant against any kind of self-cleaning. It
seems like lots of people do it without too much trouble. I hope
others will comment too. It would be nice to have opinions from a
variety of people. The more I hear, the more inclined I am to give
it a try. It just doesn't seem practical to be sending the camera
off to Canon every couple of months or so.

Mardon,

I took a number of pictures at this spot and several others within a Km or so. The cliffs here are about 200 feet high and often have a large over hang. I was shocked later at just how much air was under us. Ebony is looking out to sea on a very grey
but bright day, it has been raining and she appears to have cause for concern, the water is both rough and there is a periodic swell that can be seen on the surface and heard crashing against the shore below. The colors are washed out and so is the mood.

Some weeks ago I took other pictures near there, same basic scene the water on a sunny day is very clear, you can seen the rock formations on the bottom. On a different day I would have been able to take a type 1 image here. I love this place it is about
15 minutes from my house.

The washed out comments are well taken. I did do some processing on this image looking at the impact of various approaches before I submitted it. Re-processing the image so the water was darker and bluer caused it to lose its story and the lack of
shadows in the image "felt" wrong.

In general I want the images I take to tell the story as it is rather than the starting point for another type of image. Most of the images I submit to SI have at most been cropped and re-sized.

Thanks for your comments.

w..



Mardon wrote:

I can count two ways of interpreting "The Unseen" mandate: (1) the
unseen thing is in the fame but hard to notice unless you know it's
there, or (2) the unseen thing is not in the frame itself but is
still the main influence over what is in the frame.

Walter Banks
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931284
I love dogs, I love water, I love being in the out-of-doors, I have
hiked the Niagara portion of the Bruce Trail, plus my niece has a
Standard Schnauzer. You obviously have me on your side when it
comes to content! As for the image, I wonder what a polarizing
filter would have done to darken up the water surface and remove
some of that glare. I find the vast 'washed out' area at the top a
bit too distracting.

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931324
I'll guess that "floating furniture" is the 'unseen' part of this
photo? Too bad. No sump pumps in Massachusetts or was the power
off too? I like the composition, with the low viewpoint and the
wide lens. The running water in the foreground and the colours
help too. It works well. I never heard of those covers being
called a "bulkhead". You a Navy man by any chance?


Funny, I've never been in the Navy, but have always called those basement
doors "bulkhead" doors. Can't remember where I first learned it, though.
Must have been a past live on board ship.

Most people in town have sumps, but I've never needed one until this last
storm. It may be another few decades before I need one, but this summer I'll
install one anyway. Can't take that chance.

Fortunately, no big damage in my basement. The two pumps I had kept things
under control, and now all is dry. Compared to the guy two doors down, who
had six feet of water, and now needs a new furnace, water heater, electrical
system, etc, I got off light. He lived near a stream that rose until it was
literally spilling down his basement window like a waterfall, and even the
fire department pumps couldn't keep up. He moved out and is still waiting
for repairs to move back in.

Mardon wrote:
[Aside to Bret: How do you clean your 20D
sensor? I also have a 20D and change lenses a lot. My macros at
f/32 are now unbelievably full of specks. The camera store is
adamant that I NOT use Pec Pads or swabs of any kind and wants me
to return the camera to Canon for cleaning.


Most likely, the good folks at Canon will use the same methods that you
can use.
Canned air, pec pads w/Eclipse fluid, Q-tips, Lens Pens, vacuums, etc.
I've tried them all. I don't notice most sensor dust until I do my
macro shots where they become very apparent.

You'll read a lot of warnings about scratching your precious sensor,
but I think they are overblown. First off, you aren't really touching
your sensor. You do wanna be careful not to scratch the glass/plastic
over it, however. I don't think you could do too much damage with
canned air just as long as you let it blow for a few seconds outside
the camera to clear out the other stuff in there. Some companies even
make air blowers with no lubricants or other impurities in them if
that's a concern to you.

I don't really have a favorite method. Whatever works.
Maybe I'll invent a magnetic brush which will attract the dust to it.
Oh wait, I've already got one of those for cleaning film.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mardon wrote:
[Aside to Bret: How do you clean your 20D
sensor? I also have a 20D and change lenses a lot. My macros at
f/32 are now unbelievably full of specks. The camera store is
adamant that I NOT use Pec Pads or swabs of any kind and wants me
to return the camera to Canon for cleaning.


Most likely, the good folks at Canon will use the same methods that you
can use.
Canned air, pec pads w/Eclipse fluid, Q-tips, Lens Pens, vacuums, etc.
I've tried them all. I don't notice most sensor dust until I do my
macro shots where they become very apparent.

You'll read a lot of warnings about scratching your precious sensor,
but I think they are overblown. First off, you aren't really touching
your sensor. You do wanna be careful not to scratch the glass/plastic
over it, however. I don't think you could do too much damage with
canned air just as long as you let it blow for a few seconds outside
the camera to clear out the other stuff in there. Some companies even
make air blowers with no lubricants or other impurities in them if
that's a concern to you.

I don't really have a favorite method. Whatever works.
Maybe I'll invent a magnetic brush which will attract the dust to it.
Oh wait, I've already got one of those for cleaning film.

How about keeping your camera in a box with one of those Sharper Image air
purifiers they advertise the hell out of on late night TV? They make a small
plug in to wall model, I think......

Mardon wrote in
. 130:

Rusty Shakleford.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/60931326
I figure it's almost 'cheating' to submit a photo of a child
(archived or not) to any photo challenge. How can a smiling child
(especially one with a dirty face) not be a winner?

LOL, yes, but the example was the same way

On the
technical side, I'd like the image sharper. Remember, I've
previously admitted to extremism when it comes to sharp images.

The image is a crop, and it was shot in landscape orientation from about 8
feet, because I don't have a rotating flash bracket. That made it a tad
grainy which I fixed. Also no tripod, and while it shouldn't matter with
flash, My F4s, Tokina ATX Pro 80-200 f2.8, and the flash weigh a ton, and I
shot quite a few shots. That baby is a bundle of motion. Then also, My
pacific image PF3650 Pro3 could focus better. I think it is mostly the
scanner isn't the best. I may have drunk to much coffee also. At any rate,
I am the weak link, I can't blame my equipment much, I actually thought it
was pretty sharp

The shiny spot just above the right eye is a bit too noticeable
also.

Guess I should have bounced instead of filled, I could have taken it out in
PS, but that isn't really a traditional film technique.