Photo of Book

Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:42:33 -0500, "mmyvusenet"
wrote:

Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

LOL!!

"The righteous is delivered out of trouble"

It appears that you're not very righteous, considering all the troubles
you're having with any kind of photography that you've ever attempted.

Thanks for the laugh!

LOL!

For those of you that don't want to waste your bandwidth, it's just a very
very very bad photograph of a bible. You know, that book that everyone
reads to make themselves even more ignorant in order to amplify their
stupidity-bliss. Oh, if only this moron would read a book or two on
photography instead, we wouldn't all have to suffer his "righteousness".

LOL!

"mmyvusenet" wrote in message
...
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

MMYV, Don't pay any attention to the LOL troll. He gets off on tearing
people down and building himself up. Draco's advice is good for getting a
good photo of books.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:29:41 -0800 (PST), Draco
wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:42*am, "mmyvusenet" wrote:
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

--
MMYVhttp://www.mmyv.com

The image you made is okay for a documentation of the entire bible,
But not very good as to copy the page.

I had the impression that he was attempting to capture the book as a
subject of interest and not capturing the book to document or copy
pages.

Some books are interesting subjects because of the binding and general
interest of their appearance. In the case of the photo he's trying to
capture, the photographer should be closer to straight-on but still be
able to include the body of pages.

As usual with mm's photos, the background should be better. He
doesn't seem to have a sense of being able to "pose" his subject in
either an appropriate background or a neutral background. This book
would photograph better on a solid color cloth with, perhaps,
something like a chalice or a votive candle in the scene.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 15/02/2010 17:34, LOL! wrote:
Oh, if only this moron would read a book or two on
photography instead, we wouldn't all have to suffer his "righteousness".

Look who's talking!

--
Bertrand

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:55:14 +0100, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 17:34, LOL! wrote:
Oh, if only this moron would read a book or two on
photography instead, we wouldn't all have to suffer his "righteousness".

Look who's talking!

There's that amazing photography advice and expertise we've all come to
know and expect from you with every post you ever make!

****in' useless, piece of ****, **** of a troll.

LOL!

"mmyvusenet" wrote in message
...
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

It would seem that your agenda is not about photography.

Technical? It's a photograph. Decent. Could be better, could be worse.

Charles wrote:
"mmyvusenet" wrote in message
...
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in
close-up? Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

It would seem that your agenda is not about photography.

Technical? It's a photograph. Decent. Could be better, could be
worse.

You want not-photograhy photography? Try this colorful, bizarre stuff:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...ival_2010.html

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:29:41 -0800 (PST), Draco
wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:42 am, "mmyvusenet" wrote:
Hello:

What kind of techniques are you using to take photos of books in
close-up?

Yesterday I took this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4357519848/

Thanks for the technical comments about photography.

--
MMYVhttp://www.mmyv.com

The image you made is okay for a documentation of the entire bible,
But not very good as to copy the page.

I had the impression that he was attempting to capture the book as a
subject of interest and not capturing the book to document or copy
pages.

Some books are interesting subjects because of the binding and general
interest of their appearance. In the case of the photo he's trying to
capture, the photographer should be closer to straight-on but still be
able to include the body of pages.

As usual with mm's photos, the background should be better. He
doesn't seem to have a sense of being able to "pose" his subject in
either an appropriate background or a neutral background. This book
would photograph better on a solid color cloth with, perhaps,
something like a chalice or a votive candle in the scene.



To be blunt, you and others have been giving the OP some excellent advice
since I have been lurking on this list. His failure to show any signs of
attempting to follow it, leads me to wonder why he bothers. Even more
interesting is why anyone bothers.

--
Peter

In article ,
says...

You want not-photograhy photography? Try this colorful, bizarre stuff:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...ival_2010.html


Now _there's_ an interesting shot of a book. And a few more ...

-P.