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

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 10-10-30 8:40 , 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.

I flew into Logan last year and was picked up by a local. Who promptly
screwed up trying escape the airport.

I've driven Boston many times and even when alone and with a near
useless rental counter paper map I've gotten in and out without a hitch
- well one time I missed the ramp to the 93 coming out of the tunnel and
had to loop around the city streets - cost of 20 minutes of lights and
traffic to get back on. That whole exchange is now underground.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10/30/2010 9:28 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:51:18 -0400,
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.


Last Summer I got off I495 to try to find Ipswich, using local roads.
(We both like those restaurant shacks on that road and they are also
quite photogenic.) I tried without my GPS. One wrong turn and I wound
up approaching Essex from the North instead of the South. Had to settle
for lunch at the Clambox, after I gave in and turned on the GPS. Having
traveled a lot in both States, I would say the roads are almost equally
bad, with NJ has a slight edge on the bad side. (The good news is that
both States have lower gas prices than the surrounding States. There
must be a reason.)


Peter

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

On 2010-10-30 15:32:32 +0100, peter said:

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

Unfortunately.

--
Pete