[SI] M's are up! Come see!

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:34:18 -0800 (PST), otter
wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:38*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:08:46 -0800 (PST), otter

wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:26 am, Bowser wrote:
At last, the M's are available for viewing:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

Comments:
Tony Cooper's Mangos: I like the picture, it looks like a classic
still life painting. *The aspect ratio throws me off a little,
though. *I know you must have been trying for the rule of thirds, but
something doesn't quite click.

Actually, I didn't even think about aspect ratio or the rule of
thirds. *I free cropped to get what I wanted into the frame and re-set
the size for the maximum for S-I of 1024.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Don't get me wrong, I did like the mango picture. Just the aspect
ratio and positioning threw me a little. Didn't quite seem right. No
big deal.

I'm glad you like it, but I'm not defensive about someone not liking
any photo of mine or criticizing it in any way.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

'Museum' is the California Academy of Sciences and its green roof,
(planted with all California native plants; interesting to me anyways),


Unless you have been commissioned to make the image, that's the best
reason to take and publish the shot.

If you don't like it, what are you sharing.

That's OK, I thought it was interesting that I fell in love with the
shot but others didn't because perhaps I had dreamed up all sorts of
reasons to like it which weren't apparent :-) I do that all the time -
it's hard to make the final cull without a couple months away from them.

At last, the M's are available for viewing:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

Reading the comments, I feel like a number of shots are not showing up
on the page right now. No pizza or mango, only one mask or mailbox,
etc.

De

Reading the comments, I feel like a number of shots are not showing up
on the page right now. Â*No pizza or mango, only one mask or mailbox,
etc.

You may need to widen your window or use the scroll bar. They are
over on the right.

D'oh! Can't _believe_ I missed that.

Waking up now. I promise.

De

On 2011-03-06 15:40:10 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:54:32 +0000, Pete
wrote:
: On 2011-03-06 13:52:48 +0000, otter said:
:
: On Mar 6, 6:43*am, Pete wrote:
:
:
: A general observation...
: I've noticed in this and other SIs that negative exposure compensation
: is used far more often than I would expect if camera RAW is being used.
: My camera has about 2 and a half stops of headroom above JPEG clipping
: level: I sometimes use positive compensation, but I've never yet needed
: negative.
:
: If you are handholding in low light, sometimes underexposed shots have
: less blur. Yes, you can raise ISO, but removing noise has a cost, too.
:
: Thanks, Otter. Yep, I'd forgotten that; it's been over 20 years since I
: could handhold a camera in low light. E.g. using my 180 mm at 1/2000s
: gets about 8/10 shots blur free :-(

I feel your pain, Pete. I can still handhold OK in most circumstances, but I'm
starting to understand how advancing age increases one's appreciation of a
good, steady tripod. ;^)

I forgot to say that there was more to my submission of the gull photo
than just a torturous exercise in framing an image. Firstly, when I got
my camera in early 2009 I was dismayed to find that my camera shake
prevented the AF from working (yikes!). I contacted customer services
and was put in touch with an extremely helpful guy who walked me
through customising the camera for this specific problem. Secondly, it
was taken on the only image stabilized lens I have and showed me that I
can go back to using the old rule: shutter speed needs to be at least
1/f seconds. Yippee, I love this technology and I'm so grateful to that
guy who spent such a long time helping me. The gulf between my current
picture taking ability and what I would like to achieve pales into
insignificance; just happy to be a "learning-in-progress" amateur.

--
Pete

On 2011-03-07 20:49:56 +0000, TT said:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:08:52 -0800, Vance wrote:

DSC_0027.jpg: I like it. Blue and White makes a good combo and the
diffuse/overcast lighting is great for the subject and comes in at a
good angle for overall modelling and picking up texture in all the
areas. Good choice. The rusted areas add accents in tone and are
complimentary in color, another accent that works and just enough of
them to add interest. The image feels crowded along the bottom and to
the right side, the right side because of the period. Not a lot of room
to either bottom or right side, but some. Nice choice of subject/
lighting.

thank you very much, I sent this photo many day ago and I forgot it, good
chance to find your comment. I may agree to put the name of photographer
on the site, no problem for me. I suppose the mail text could act as text
for the shot.

Having enjoyed image DSC_0027.jpg I would've commented on it, but due
to my mental problems I'm totally unable to reply to a JPEG. Thanks for
submitting it TT, you have opened my eyes to see that "at a first
glance" subjects are all to easy to dismiss. Please submit more of your
images to the SI.

--
Pete

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 06:05:06 -0800 (PST), otter
wrote:
: On Mar 7, 9:17*am, (Dennis Boone) wrote:
: * Reading the comments, I feel like a number of shots are not showing up
: * on the page right now. *No pizza or mango, only one mask or mailbox,
: * etc.
:
: * You may need to widen your window or use the scroll bar. *They are
: * over on the right.
:
: D'oh! *Can't _believe_ I missed that.
:
: Waking up now. *I promise.
:
: De
:
: Don't worry, it happened to me, too. That's why I knew what the issue
: was.

And two or three months ago it happened to me. I even wrote to Bowser asking
why one of my pictures was missing. Felt like a fool when I figured it out.

There must be some mismatch between the site and Internet Explorer. IIRC, the
problem didn't occur with Firefox.

Bob