If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
Some nice shots this month, so please take a look:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On Mar 18, 6:20*pm, Bowser wrote:
Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...ream/lightbox/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On 2013-03-18 17:10:41 -0700, otter said:
On Mar 18, 6:20*pm, Bowser wrote: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...stream/lightbo x/ That fits the mandate perfectly. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On 19/03/2013 11:10 AM, otter wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:20 pm, Bowser wrote: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...ream/lightbox/ I do like that and it does demonstrate the mandate. Even better with image it has some animal/human interest and interaction, that draws one attention. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On Mar 19, 1:30*am, Rob wrote:
On 19/03/2013 11:10 AM, otter wrote: On Mar 18, 6:20 pm, Bowser wrote: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. *Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes.../photostream/l... I do like that and it does demonstrate the mandate. Even better with image it has some animal/human interest and interaction, that draws one attention. Thanks, but strictly speaking I think the mandate was to shoot something while looking up or looking down, not to shoot something which was looking up or down. Also, it is a lot easier to pull that out of the archive, though, than to go out and shoot something interesting on demand that fits a mandate. But I thought people would like it, anyway. Here is a shot from what was keeping me busy, SXSW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...5529/lightbox/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:07:19 -0700 (PDT), otter
wrote: On Mar 19, 1:30*am, Rob wrote: On 19/03/2013 11:10 AM, otter wrote: On Mar 18, 6:20 pm, Bowser wrote: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. *Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes.../photostream/l... DAMN! Another URL amputated by Google. Try http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...ream/lightbox/ I do like that and it does demonstrate the mandate. Even better with image it has some animal/human interest and interaction, that draws one attention. Thanks, but strictly speaking I think the mandate was to shoot something while looking up or looking down, not to shoot something which was looking up or down. Also, it is a lot easier to pull that out of the archive, though, than to go out and shoot something interesting on demand that fits a mandate. But I thought people would like it, anyway. I don't qute agree with you. I think you are being overly literal. The mandate is looking up and down but it doesn't say who or what is looking up and down. I think that this shot epitomises the mandate perfectly. Here is a shot from what was keeping me busy, SXSW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...5529/lightbox/ Ear plugs! Where are my ear plugs? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On 20/03/2013 6:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:07:19 -0700 (PDT), otter wrote: On Mar 19, 1:30 am, Rob wrote: On 19/03/2013 11:10 AM, otter wrote: On Mar 18, 6:20 pm, Bowser wrote: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes.../photostream/l... DAMN! Another URL amputated by Google. Try http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...ream/lightbox/ I do like that and it does demonstrate the mandate. Even better with image it has some animal/human interest and interaction, that draws one attention. Thanks, but strictly speaking I think the mandate was to shoot something while looking up or looking down, not to shoot something which was looking up or down. Also, it is a lot easier to pull that out of the archive, though, than to go out and shoot something interesting on demand that fits a mandate. But I thought people would like it, anyway. I don't qute agree with you. I think you are being overly literal. The mandate is looking up and down but it doesn't say who or what is looking up and down. I think that this shot epitomises the mandate perfectly. Here is a shot from what was keeping me busy, SXSW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...5529/lightbox/ Ear plugs! Where are my ear plugs? I must be like you, can't stand the way modern music has to be so ramped up that its fully distorted. Have to laugh when they recommend that people who go to these venues should wear ear protection. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On 3/18/2013 7:20 PM, Bowser wrote:
Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! I always appreciate women. -- PeterN |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On 3/18/2013 8:10 PM, otter wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:20 pm, Bowser wrote: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down More mandates will be posted this week. I've received some good suggestions which will, hopefully, be a little more inclusive. So far, over the last two months I've asked for shots of steeples from people who have none even close, and shots from on high from people living in the flatlands, and other places with no tall structures. So I need to break this rut and select mandates with more broad appeal. Help me out! No time to work on SI. Here is a picture which doesn't fit the mandate, but I was reminded of it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billkes...ream/lightbox/ I think it does fit the mandate. Nicely done -- PeterN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Looking Up/Looking Down is UP!
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:20:32 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: Some nice shots this month, so please take a look: : : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/looking_up_down My comments; sorry they're so late: Cooper Lighthouse What's not to like? It's a workmanlike shot of the sort that anyone who lives near the shore captures from time to time. I might have Siskerized the sky a bit, but it's a sharp picture with everything in its place. Cooper Looking Down Very well done. Exactly wht the mandate evvisioned, I guess I'd have to say. Cooper Looking Up Compositionally, I don't think this quite matches the previous shot, but I like the colors. Again it's an excellent match for the mandate. Bob Coe 1 & 2 These pictures capture the gloominess of the day, possibly to an extreme. When I took them, I was thinking only of the "looking down" aspect of the mandate. If I had if to do over, I'd make the "looking up" picture show more of the reservoir and a better angle on the dam. Quite honestly, I left a bit sooner than I might have, because I was alone, the area was deserted, and the two strangers seemed just a bit too eager to engage me in conversation without showing any actual interest in what I was doing. Probably an overreaction on my part. I guess it's worth mentioning that the pictures tend to illustrate the limitations of an APS-C camera for landscape photography. While the Tokina 11-16 is one of the best WA lenses available for this type of camera, it's not the sharpest lens in my bag. With a FF camera, you have more options at the wide end. Bob Coe 3 It's an understatement to say that this one wasn't a hit with the group. My excuse is that I liked the colors, the shadows, and the lines created by the ramp and the skylight. I watched that elevator being built for a good two years and always wanted a chance to photograph it. The station is in Cambridge, so the picture goes into my stock photos of Porter Square. Martha Coe 1 & 2 Martha didn't get many opportunities to get out and shoot this month, so she settled for a couple of shots in the nieghborhood. They're nice pictures, but I can see why some said they don't meet the mandate very well. Martha Coe 3 Martha has always liked the pictures we took at the Whaling Museum a couple of years ago, and this one does meet the mandate. Someone suggested that it might have been better as a WA shot, which strikes me as a good suggestion. If we get down there again, we'll give it a try. Bowser 1 This is about as good a shot out of an airplane window as I've ever seen. (Well, some of the Savage Duck's air show pix probably match it.) I poked around Google Maps and a AAA road atlas to try to locate the site, but without success. On the assumption that it was taken on Bowser's way to Las Vegas, I think statistical probabilities place it near Farmington, NM, a location often mentioned by pilots explaining their flight plans to their passengers. I surmise that Farmington is the site of a major navigational beacon. Bowser 2a This one sort of leaves me cold. I guess I've seen too many good pictures of the real SOL for this one to make much of an impression. I might feel differently if some obvious Las Vegas kitch were included. Bowser 3 Well, here's the Las Vegas kitch, but little else. It feels very constrained. Fisheye shots were once Bowser's specialty, and I suspect that this could have been a good one, had he had the proper equipment at hand. Anonymous Reflection I forget who took credit for this. It's an OK shot, but seems intended for one of last year's mandates. I rather like the colors. I'd probably have tried to normalize the orange out, which I suspect would have been a mistake. Rob's Stairwell Not as elegant as Tony's two, but an interesting picture nevertheless. I don't think it helps that some of it is OOF, but that may have been unavoidable. Rob's Trees I kind of like this, for no good reason. The blue looks highly artificial, though I'm sure it isn't. I guess its abstract qualitity is what makes it work; if the picture came from Peter Newman, I'd assume that was done intentionally. What accounts for the odd shadow(?) in the upper right corner? I think I have to knock off a couple of points for that. Savageduck 1-3 Three nice landscapes that serve the mandate well. The third one, in particular, has an understated, painterly quality about it that may or may not have been intentional. Like some of the Duck's previous work, these look like they've been worked over in post-processing, but to good artistic effect. And like last time, he'll probably tell me they haven't. I don't think it really matters: I'm not at all opposed to artistic post-processing, although I don't do it very well myself. And the Duck is certainly a good enough landscape photographer to know when a picture needs work and when it doesn't. Tim Conway 2 This one doesn't work. It suffers acutely from the obvious comparison with Rob's trees, but it's technically defective even without the comparison. I don't recall exactly what Tim said about this picture and his other one, but I believe he indicated that at least one of them was done in by a mis-adjusted scanner. Tim Conway Old This one came out horribly noisy, as others have pointed out. I suspect the picture might have been a bit bland anyway, but will give it the benefit of the doubt. The technical problems preclude a rational assessment of the composition and color. Bob |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|