[SI] Last 90 is posted and ready for viewing!

On 2010-10-29 20:44:31 +0100, Alan Browne said:

On 10-10-29 11:35 , Pete wrote:
Alan Brown:
Great stuff. The lighting and colour rendition in 0029 are exemplary.
0079 and 0062 demonstrate, to me, that the "norm" of using all of the
256 levels available is not always appropriate. Initially, 0062 looked
underexposed (I measured -0.4 EV below clipping), but it is your
rendition of this scene that gives it much better mood than the "norm".

Thanks. However I don't think you should be measuring exposure as a
tool to evaluating an image. There is no rule that says an image has
to be printed (or displayed) to use the entire dynamic range
technically available (though recording close to peak is often
desirable to allow for more editing range after the fact).

Agreed. I mentioned it to acknowledge that we both understand this
point. When 0062 is viewed on its own it looks fine, as a thumbnail in
the whole set it looks underexposed. If it was printed as-is it would
need a dark mount and frame. A white mount wouldn't work at all.

The day was dull, as presented. Perhaps a polarizer could have been
used to enhance the green grass...

Enhancing the grass would have made it look artificial.

If you look at the histo for 29, it is clear there was some clipping at
recording time (right edge of each RBG channel falls abruptly) and that
there was little information at the low end of the dynamic range. This
is common in high key shots or shots like I took of a very pale scene -
you can't record what is not there. I really wanted to catch the pale
soft shadow of the sculpture - most critiques of this photo are
negative (here and elsewhere) as the shadow is so soft that many people
don't "get it".

I noticed the soft shadow straight away.

--
Pete

On 10/30/2010 1:06 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."


Sorry, the mystery in the original appeals to me. The new one is little
more than a shot of someone else's work.

YMMV

--
Peter

On 10-10-30 0:55 , Russell D. wrote:
On 10/29/2010 03:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg


Thanks. I like it. I like that kind of art.

Here's another then, as shot, close up.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11387746-lg.jpg

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10-10-30 8:06 , peter wrote:
On 10/30/2010 1:06 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."


Sorry, the mystery in the original appeals to me. The new one is little
more than a shot of someone else's work.

Was only meant to satisfy Russell's curiosity about the work proper. I
only took the one shot of it.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10-10-30 1:06 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."

First off, the original is the photo as I wanted to take it - as someone
first approaches the work. brag ahead Thankfully the combination of
the Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8 and Sony a900 allowed extracting the sculpture
from the photo for Russell's interest /brag.

Secondly, none of the photos I put up (save perhaps the hands and lathe)
is a "favourite" - I confess to mandate stuffing for the purpose of
participation.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10/30/2010 10:17 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-30 8:06 , peter wrote:
On 10/30/2010 1:06 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted
more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going
back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were
after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."


Sorry, the mystery in the original appeals to me. The new one is little
more than a shot of someone else's work.

Was only meant to satisfy Russell's curiosity about the work proper. I
only took the one shot of it.


Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than naked.

--
Peter

On 2010-10-30 07:20:47 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-30 1:06 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."

First off, the original is the photo as I wanted to take it - as
someone first approaches the work.

That was my reasoning for the Bugatti shot.


brag ahead Thankfully the combination of the Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8
and Sony a900 allowed extracting the sculpture from the photo for
Russell's interest /brag.

Secondly, none of the photos I put up (save perhaps the hands and
lathe) is a "favourite" - I confess to mandate stuffing for the purpose
of participation.

Ah! Ha! Ballot stuffing!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10-10-30 10:32 , peter wrote:
On 10/30/2010 10:17 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-30 8:06 , peter wrote:

Sorry, the mystery in the original appeals to me. The new one is little
more than a shot of someone else's work.

Was only meant to satisfy Russell's curiosity about the work proper. I
only took the one shot of it.


Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than naked.

But not always.

IAC, there was nothing special about the original that invoked a bar to
Russell's interest.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:06:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."

Horses for courses, but I liked the original better. This close-up is
a good photograph of someone else's artistic work. The original was a
Alan's artistic approach to this piece of work.

The Shoot-In isn't an exercise in documentary photography. There's a
place for that, but what we're doing here is demonstrating the
photographer's ability to see, frame, and process a subject. The
original was pure Alan Browne. His later commentary explained what he
was trying to do with shadow and color using that piece of art as a
starting-off point. This close-up is just a technically sound
replication of what someone else has created.

If the purpose of the close-up was to demonstrate Alan's ability to
take a photograph of an artwork for inclusion in a glossy brochure to
promote the artist, I'd look at it differently. That was not the
purpose for the original, although it could be a good cover shot for
an exhibit in general.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10/30/2010 11:03 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-30 10:32 , peter wrote:
On 10/30/2010 10:17 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-10-30 8:06 , peter wrote:

Sorry, the mystery in the original appeals to me. The new one is little
more than a shot of someone else's work.

Was only meant to satisfy Russell's curiosity about the work proper. I
only took the one shot of it.


Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than
naked.

But not always.

Note my use of the word: "most." Sometimes the exceptions are
proportional to the time in the bar.

IAC, there was nothing special about the original that invoked a bar to
Russell's interest.



--
Peter