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

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

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

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.

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."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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."

There's nothing sadder than someone wanting to be a photographer so they
take photos of others' artistic works that have already been properly lit
and displayed to show its best merits. Every passer-by is already getting
the exact same visual as gets recorded in every photograph of it no matter
who might be holding a camera nearby. Then they sit around convincing
themselves and being convinced by others, that they are now great artistic
photographers. When in reality they've still not moved one bit past their
perpetual beginner crapshooter phase. I'm not sure who is the bigger fool
in this scenario. The crapshooter trying to feel successful by
photographing the artistic successes of others? Or the ones that falsely
praise the crapshooter because they themselves are just that ****ingly
stupid and ignorant too.


Perhaps you should all take your cameras into all the museums of the world
and photograph all the great works hanging on the walls and in display
cases. Then you too can believe you now have all the skill and artistic
ability of the great masters throughout history.

Complete fools and idiots, one and all.

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 Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:52:36 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:
:
: Question: Do any roads lead OUT of Boston (besides the tollroad to
: Logan?)???

Of course. It's not that such roads don't exist; it's just that we don't tell
you how to find them. The attitude towards road signs in Massachusetts has
generally been that our road system is so confusing that signs wouldn't help
an outsider much. And since most locals already know their way around, why
bother? In most of the state you can drive for miles along a major street
without discovering its name, because the street signs give the names of the
more minor intersecting streets only.

That system sort of functions, except when major roads or bridges are closed
for construction. Where in other cities you may see a DETOUR sign, the more
common instruction in Massachusetts is SEEK ALTERNATE ROUTE. There's actually
a certain humor in that, unless you happen to be in an area where you have no
idea where any alternate routes are.

BTW, you can get to and from the airport without paying a toll, although the
route is circuitous and slow. And there are two subway/bus routes to the
airport that are cheaper, and often much quicker, than driving.

Bob

On 10/30/2010 8:40 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:52:36 -0500, George
wrote:
:
: Question: Do any roads lead OUT of Boston (besides the tollroad to
: Logan?)???

Of course. It's not that such roads don't exist; it's just that we don't tell
you how to find them. The attitude towards road signs in Massachusetts has
generally been that our road system is so confusing that signs wouldn't help
an outsider much. And since most locals already know their way around, why
bother? In most of the state you can drive for miles along a major street
without discovering its name, because the street signs give the names of the
more minor intersecting streets only.

That system sort of functions, except when major roads or bridges are closed
for construction. Where in other cities you may see a DETOUR sign, the more
common instruction in Massachusetts is SEEK ALTERNATE ROUTE. There's actually
a certain humor in that, unless you happen to be in an area where you have no
idea where any alternate routes are.

BTW, you can get to and from the airport without paying a toll, although the
route is circuitous and slow. And there are two subway/bus routes to the
airport that are cheaper, and often much quicker, than driving.


You follow the New Jersey concept. I have maintained for years that
nobody should knock the road system in New Jersey. Indeed, if it wasn't
for the NJ road system we might have lost the Revolution. The British
got so lost on the NJ roads that we won.

--
Peter

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:51:18 -0400, peter
wrote:
: On 10/30/2010 8:40 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:52:36 -0500, George
: wrote:
: :
: : Question: Do any roads lead OUT of Boston (besides the tollroad to
: : Logan?)???
:
: Of course. It's not that such roads don't exist; it's just that we don't tell
: you how to find them. The attitude towards road signs in Massachusetts has
: generally been that our road system is so confusing that signs wouldn't help
: an outsider much. And since most locals already know their way around, why
: bother? In most of the state you can drive for miles along a major street
: without discovering its name, because the street signs give the names of the
: more minor intersecting streets only.
:
: That system sort of functions, except when major roads or bridges are closed
: for construction. Where in other cities you may see a DETOUR sign, the more
: common instruction in Massachusetts is SEEK ALTERNATE ROUTE. There's actually
: a certain humor in that, unless you happen to be in an area where you have no
: idea where any alternate routes are.
:
: BTW, you can get to and from the airport without paying a toll, although the
: route is circuitous and slow. And there are two subway/bus routes to the
: airport that are cheaper, and often much quicker, than driving.
:
:
: You follow the New Jersey concept. I have maintained for years that
: nobody should knock the road system in New Jersey. Indeed, if it wasn't
: for the NJ road system we might have lost the Revolution. The British
: got so lost on the NJ roads that we won.

My daughter lives in Philadelphia, so I drive through New Jersey a fair
amount. I even found my way to Canon's Jamesburg shop once. My impression is
that Massachusetts is much worse than New Jersey. When I've gotten lost in New
Jersey, it's usually been because of the confusing numbering of the
Interstates, and I blame the Federal government for that.

Bob

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.