Some Comments for U.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:27:51 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-18 14:20 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:17:47 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-18 12:16 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-18 09:06:08 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-02-13 19:41 , Bowser wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444630
Nice colors! An Umbrella, obvously, but a nice combination of red and
blue, with a nice transition between the two. Nicely lit.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444629
Another Umbrella, more good colors. The composition suits the colors;
works well for me.

Thanks.


http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444628
Utensils. I didn't think of this. You know what would have been nice?
A reflection of an Umbrella in the Utensils. Did you light these three
shots with strobe Umbrellas?

Yes. I tried various ways to get a good reflection of the umbrellas in
there, but didn't come up with anything remotely satisfying. I've
deleted them too. I did take some interesting photos of utensils in
San Andres a couple years ago. The outdoor lunch tent had a blue cloth
roof. The colour in the utensils was interesting.


He http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/62816810/1/Utes?h=450b28

For years I've been collecting sterling silver "utensils" ("flatware"
to me),

For the mandate.

In French the word is "Ustensils" so using the English "utensils" is
more common in Frenglish here in Quebec.

I only call it flatware when I have to dig it out and polish it which I
don't do. There is a pile of silver flatware her and it needs a lot of
polishing. Maybe I'll photograph a bit of it for your opinion.)

as you call them, and other sterling dinnerware items. A few
years ago I started selling off my collection on eBay.

I recall your very nicely done photos.


They are a bitch to photograph...especially spoons. The bowl of the
spoon reflects the surroundings and the camera's lens. I used a
home-made light box made from a translucent lampshade with a
translucent sheet of plastic over the top and a hole cut in it for the
lens. It was also hard get a good image of the sterling maker's mark
since the camera I had then didn't have good macro ability.

Curved, reflective surfaces are always a photographic opportunity. But
they do catch everything wildly outside the field and that gives more
headache than opportunity in most cases.

You mean like http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ventilator%202.jpg ?

Macro lenses are a must for 'marks' and such as well as to pick up
detail in the patina.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-18 17:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:27:51 -0500, Alan Browne

Curved, reflective surfaces are always a photographic opportunity. But
they do catch everything wildly outside the field and that gives more
headache than opportunity in most cases.

You mean like http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ventilator%202.jpg ?


Perfect. Next time look like a pro and support the lens with your left
hand under the lens. ;-)

(What are these? Some sort of light fixture or air intake for a boat?
(I always guess wrong...)).

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:29:09 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-18 17:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:27:51 -0500, Alan Browne

Curved, reflective surfaces are always a photographic opportunity. But
they do catch everything wildly outside the field and that gives more
headache than opportunity in most cases.

You mean like http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ventilator%202.jpg ?


Perfect. Next time look like a pro and support the lens with your left
hand under the lens. ;-)

(What are these? Some sort of light fixture or air intake for a boat?
(I always guess wrong...)).

Your second guess is correct. Very expensive stainless steel cast by
the lost wax process.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:29:09 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-18 17:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:27:51 -0500, Alan Browne

Curved, reflective surfaces are always a photographic opportunity. But
they do catch everything wildly outside the field and that gives more
headache than opportunity in most cases.

You mean like http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ventilator%202.jpg ?


Ha, there's two faces hiding in the one upside down, the other of the
same person I guess

;-)


Perfect. Next time look like a pro and support the lens with your left
hand under the lens. ;-)

(What are these? Some sort of light fixture or air intake for a boat?
(I always guess wrong...)).

Your second guess is correct. Very expensive stainless steel cast by
the lost wax process.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:10:15 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:29:09 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-18 17:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:27:51 -0500, Alan Browne

Curved, reflective surfaces are always a photographic opportunity. But
they do catch everything wildly outside the field and that gives more
headache than opportunity in most cases.

You mean like http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ventilator%202.jpg ?


Ha, there's two faces hiding in the one upside down, the other of the
same person I guess

I took the photograph against a background of a large sheet of plain
whit drawing paper. The ventilators sat on the paper and my wife held
it up at the back. Both the top of the paper and my wife were out of
the field of view, weren't they? Weren't they?

This is worse than having the photographer's shadow in the picture.
With objects like this you get everything in the picture and there is
no way of avoiding it.


Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-19 03:48:09 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:10:15 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:29:09 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-18 17:44 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:27:51 -0500, Alan Browne

Curved, reflective surfaces are always a photographic opportunity. But
they do catch everything wildly outside the field and that gives more
headache than opportunity in most cases.

You mean like http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ventilator%202.jpg ?


Ha, there's two faces hiding in the one upside down, the other of the
same person I guess

I took the photograph against a background of a large sheet of plain
whit drawing paper. The ventilators sat on the paper and my wife held
it up at the back. Both the top of the paper and my wife were out of
the field of view, weren't they? Weren't they?

Nope.

This is worse than having the photographer's shadow in the picture.
With objects like this you get everything in the picture and there is
no way of avoiding it.

On 2012-02-18 12:27:51 -0800, Alan Browne
said:



In French the word is "Ustensils" so using the English "utensils" is
more common in Frenglish here in Quebec.

"Ustensils", French?

i believe a check will reveal that "utensil" is late Middle English,
and is derived from the Old French "utensile", which came from the
medieval Latin neuter form of "utensilis", meaning usable, from "uti"
to use.
Originally a collective term for domestic implements or containers.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-02-19 06:49:50 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-18 12:27:51 -0800, Alan Browne
said:



In French the word is "Ustensils" so using the English "utensils" is
more common in Frenglish here in Quebec.

"Ustensils", French?

i believe a check will reveal that "utensil" is late Middle English,
and is derived from the Old French "utensile", which came from the
medieval Latin neuter form of "utensilis", meaning usable, from "uti"
to use.
Originally a collective term for domestic implements or containers.

Un ustensile; ustensiles de table; ustensiles de cuisine.

On 2012-02-19 00:03:49 -0800, Pete A said:

On 2012-02-19 06:49:50 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-18 12:27:51 -0800, Alan Browne
said:



In French the word is "Ustensils" so using the English "utensils" is
more common in Frenglish here in Quebec.

"Ustensils", French?

i believe a check will reveal that "utensil" is late Middle English,
and is derived from the Old French "utensile", which came from the
medieval Latin neuter form of "utensilis", meaning usable, from "uti"
to use.
Originally a collective term for domestic implements or containers.

Un ustensile; ustensiles de table; ustensiles de cuisine.

However if you actually check a dictionary for the origins of the word,
utensil "u-s-t-e-n-s-i-l-e-s" is not mentioned, but "u-t-e-n-s-i-l-e"
is.
....and I guess Old French came along way before whatever created that
odd 3 "S" spelling.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-02-19 08:53:15 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-19 00:03:49 -0800, Pete A said:

On 2012-02-19 06:49:50 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-18 12:27:51 -0800, Alan Browne
said:



In French the word is "Ustensils" so using the English "utensils" is
more common in Frenglish here in Quebec.

"Ustensils", French?

i believe a check will reveal that "utensil" is late Middle English,
and is derived from the Old French "utensile", which came from the
medieval Latin neuter form of "utensilis", meaning usable, from "uti"
to use.
Originally a collective term for domestic implements or containers.

Un ustensile; ustensiles de table; ustensiles de cuisine.

However if you actually check a dictionary for the origins of the word,
utensil "u-s-t-e-n-s-i-l-e-s" is not mentioned, but "u-t-e-n-s-i-l-e"
is.
...and I guess Old French came along way before whatever created that
odd 3 "S" spelling.

Sorry, I sent the post instead of saving it.

I found it interesting that "utensiles" is not mentioned.

It seems the word "utensile" was introduced around the mid 1300's and
"us..." was a much later corruption, but I can't find when it first
appeared neither can I find a date for "utensiles".