StarDestroyer.Net BBS

2 Last shots from the Con:



And one from a party:

The largest geek you'll ever see. (He's about 2 meters tall and works out a lot. Nice guy).

Death wrote:

Elliott Erwitt wrote:

New York is such a great city... .
That lens isn't much for paparazzi shots of people though. (That, or you need to work on your sneaking around skills )

Death wrote:

William Eggleston wrote:

Memphis is such a great city... .
That lens isn't much for paparazzi shots of people though. (That, or you need to work on your sneaking around skills )

Death wrote:

Robert Capa wrote:

Normandy is such a great coast... .
That lens isn't much for paparazzi shots of people though. (That, or you need to work on your sneaking around skills )

Death wrote:

Willy Ronis wrote:

Paris is such a great city... .
That lens isn't much for paparazzi shots of people though. (That, or you need to work on your sneaking around skills )

Death wrote:

Cornell Capa wrote:

Buffalo is such a great city... .
That lens isn't much for paparazzi shots of people though. (That, or you need to work on your sneaking around skills )

Get the picture?

While my skills at people-photography are admittedly subpar, "sneaking around skills" is not exactly what's needed, nor - as Simplicius has just pointed out - is my lens the problem.

phongn wrote:While my skills at people-photography are admittedly subpar, "sneaking around skills" is not exactly what's needed, nor - as Simplicius has just pointed out - is my lens the problem.

Those shots are crowd or landscape+person shots in my notebook .
So your argument fails, in the face of my undefined definitions!

The 2nd picture's beautiful, you have the light fixture & the domed ceiling tilted & offset just enough to make it look lively & eyecatching. I've tried angled views similar to this in a few of my photos but I have a hard time getting the right balance between energy and "ow, I went too far and I don't know which way is up anymore", I usually go too far or not enough, what looks ok on my camera's screen usually doesn't when it's blown up on my computer monitor.

J wrote:The 2nd picture's beautiful, you have the light fixture & the domed ceiling tilted & offset just enough to make it look lively & eyecatching. I've tried angled views similar to this in a few of my photos but I have a hard time getting the right balance between energy and "ow, I went too far and I don't know which way is up anymore", I usually go too far or not enough, what looks ok on my camera's screen usually doesn't when it's blown up on my computer monitor.

Judging by phongn's photo, and by automotive photography, successful angles are those that bring a strong background-to-foreground line close to the frame's diagonal. Tilting flat scenes gives the "Help, the world's falling over" effect.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Those shots are crowd or landscape+person shots in my notebook .
So your argument fails, in the face of my undefined definitions!

You're not off the hook yet. You didn't grasp even the most basic point of his photo, and instead jumped to make an irrelevant comment about the type of photo you thought he should have been making. You need to pay more attention to others' work, and do more asking and less telling.

Simplicius wrote:Judging by phongn's photo, and by automotive photography, successful angles are those that bring a strong background-to-foreground line close to the frame's diagonal. Tilting flat scenes gives the "Help, the world's falling over" effect.

In a sense, that's an application of the Golden Ratio (and its applications in the Golden Triangle and Golden Spiral). This blog entry has a brief description and some overlays of how they work. The famous "rule of thirds" is an approximation of the areas defined by the Golden Spiral.

When I'm more mindful, I try to shoot to those proportions - though most of the time I'm not quite so thoughtful. I'm as guilty of firing off snapshots as anyone else.

You're not off the hook yet. You didn't grasp even the most basic point of his photo, and instead jumped to make an irrelevant comment about the type of photo you thought he should have been making. You need to pay more attention to others' work, and do more asking and less telling.

For that matter, there's the whole "lens" comment. The shots I've been posted the last few days are some of my favorite shots - and were taken with my least expensive equipment.

I'm not much good at candid photography myself, and I don't get much chance to practice it. I stumbled across an opportunity to give it a shot the other day..



I'm not very happy with it, but there's at least some meaning to it if you're a local: there's been a big flap lately over whether undeveloped Sears Island, where POV is standing, should have an intermodal port built on it or not.



Another one, the concept of which I think I like better, if not the execution.

phongn wrote:In a sense, that's an application of the Golden Ratio (and its applications in the Golden Triangle and Golden Spiral). This blog entry has a brief description and some overlays of how they work. The famous "rule of thirds" is an approximation of the areas defined by the Golden Spiral.

When I'm more mindful, I try to shoot to those proportions - though most of the time I'm not quite so thoughtful. I'm as guilty of firing off snapshots as anyone else.

Thanks for the link! I know of the first two rules though I don't consciously use them much, the Golden Spiral is new to me and I'll definitely try to find some applications for it in future photos.

Now for something somewhat different (still from my KR64 binge):

I shot the Bean in some pretty drab lighting giving everything a sort of blue-gray look (the blue might just be my scanner - I really need to get a light table or something). It was also a bit off-center - so, here's the pic cropped a bit and desaturated.



Here's another shot - unfortunately, my focus with my rangefinder isn't so hot so detail was lost, plus the lighting was pretty harsh at that time of day. Thus, I overprocessed the image (heavy contrast, saturation, etc.) to see what I could do with it. I'm not quite pleased with the water, though.

phongn wrote:Now for something somewhat different (still from my KR64 binge):

The Bean is cool, B&W works pretty well with it.

The colours definitely went a bit wonky with the second picture, it now looks like a confused digital camera picture, not Kodachrome. If you don't mind sending me the originals, I'd like to take a shot at fixing up both of these pictures.

Simplicius wrote:
Another one, the concept of which I think I like better, if not the execution.

I like this one better too. For one, the colors aren't distracting like the first picture (it has an odd reddish hue to it) and two, the eye is immediately drawn to the dog - who seems much more alert than his master. I wonder, then, what's the guy picking up?

EDIT: Some thoughts about the first picture - I can't quite tell what the subject is. Is it the couple or is it the storage tanks across the river? The couple's dark clothing is also in-line with the much brighter buildings - so they seem to blend in.

Here's some people. Pentax 645N / Kodak TMY-2 400.

phongn wrote:I like this one better too. For one, the colors aren't distracting like the first picture (it has an odd reddish hue to it) and two, the eye is immediately drawn to the dog - who seems much more alert than his master. I wonder, then, what's the guy picking up?

The hue is just a sloppy color correction job on my part. Sometimes my scans come out with a heavy green-blue tinge to them, and my quick edits are just that. Everything will eventually get proper editing, but I've got another 1300 frames or so to scan first.

If I remember right, the guy was going for something he could toss.

Fake Edit: Do you find having the native format be portrait odd, or is it easy to get used to?

Simplicius wrote:The hue is just a sloppy color correction job on my part. Sometimes my scans come out with a heavy green-blue tinge to them, and my quick edits are just that. Everything will eventually get proper editing, but I've got another 1300 frames or so to scan first.

I tend to like somewhat colder images so my scans (especially the Kodachrome stuff) probably reflects that. And I know what you mean about huge numbers of frames to scan

Fake Edit: Do you find having the native format be portrait odd, or is it easy to get used to?

The 645N is a landscape camera. I've briefly handled a Fuji GA645 and it feels a bit odd, to be honest.

3 shots from today:

I've been hankering to get my hands on a macro lens exactly this short of shot of an eye. Focus is a bloody headache with a 100mm Macro lens though...

Simplicius wrote:Fake Edit: Do you find having the native format be portrait odd, or is it easy to get used to?

I'm shooting a bit with my Olympus Pen FT which also has portrait as the default, I find I don't really notice it at all. Then again this is the first camera I learned to use so it's 2nd nature, more or less.

Edit: And a photo.

Macro:


Jerusalem towers at sunset:


Urban landscape inside a botanical garden:

Death, that second photo two points up - the girl praying - is beautiful.

Bounty wrote:Death, that second photo two points up - the girl praying - is beautiful.

Thanks .
She's actually Orthodox Jewish, and the church is a christian one, but once we found that the rail overlooked the church and I moved her around a bit, it all just clicked.
I'm enraptured by the light, it just came out so soft and golden (it was midday light through trees, so no idea why it wasn't harsh), it just made the whole thing "Click". .

I seriously overexposed a bunch of Fortia shots - I need to be more careful about it and learn how to properly meter (i.e. not trust the camera all the time!) But here are a couple of my better shots from this particular roll. 645N / Fortia SP @ EI 64.

The second shot is a crop from a larger image; LR's crop feature conveniently shows rule-of-thirds for you. The crop also measures quite close to the size of a 135 frame!

My husband made me do camera duties at the bicycle race since he was trying to pick up women too busy socializing.
Action photography usually isn't my thing so I had more duds than normal.





Best socks of the day



Jumping over the barriers

Parents. A few words of caution: don't do this to your kid too many times or he'll get motion sick and upchuck his lunch. My friend's husband had his kid run at him, then he'd pick him up and backflip him in the air & catch him. After a few flips the kid wasn't running too straight anymore.

Animal pics for the day.