Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 75   Go Down

Author Topic: Without Prejudice  (Read 477970 times)

shutterpup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #740 on: February 20, 2012, 08:42:38 pm »

Up Periscope
Logged

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #741 on: February 20, 2012, 09:57:25 pm »

Pretty Flamingo has legs.

Bruce
Logged

Dahlmann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #742 on: February 20, 2012, 10:08:02 pm »





/D

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #743 on: February 21, 2012, 05:07:03 am »

Thanks for the encouraging comments on my latest 'bird' - reminds me that life is all a circle: a repetition, in this case, of a visual mood that set me off with my paint/photography of a few years ago, where I'd paint on a piece of Formica, shoot it, and then scrub the paint away for the next trick. Bought a lot of paint, most of which dried up in the can... going walkies instead is more healthy!

Actually, of those shots, the one that worked best for me was using the board after it had been scrubbed, and putting a butterfly onto it rather than more paint. Charon's Ferry was the result. And no, I didn't go butterfly catching - the poor thing was just there, dead on the terrace tiles. Truly matched the rôle it was cast.

It really does underline the validity of HC-B's dictum about simply being receptive and not trying to force things. You just have to make do with what God provides, and I used to feel exactly the same way with my model work, too. I seldom went out with fixed ideas, probably because I never had much ability to formulate them in the first place.

;-)

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #744 on: February 21, 2012, 03:37:23 pm »

http://youtu.be/fF6cSMsMstI

Quite nothing to do with the above, this shot's another from the little marina wander the other afternoon.

Incidently, I've stuck two rows of pix from that period onto the end of the Sea gallery, should anyone be interested.

http://www.roma57.com/sea.html

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 05:08:02 pm by Rob C »
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #745 on: February 22, 2012, 01:07:40 am »

I really like the textures and colours in these Rob.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #746 on: February 22, 2012, 04:17:23 am »

The camera is a Canon S95 P&S.




Whose camera?

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #747 on: February 22, 2012, 04:33:47 am »

I really like the textures and colours in these Rob.



Hi David

There's a problem, though: my lenses are manual (other than for the 180mm) and as far as I can remember without RTFM again, only the centre af point on the screen works with manual lenses as an indicator of focus. That used not to be a problem for me, but now I am finding an ever increasing inability to focus with the right eye, so I dodge from the right one to compose to the left to focus... I found the cellphone, on the same subject type, very much easier; especially as I couldn't see the subject anyway because of the strong light! It became a simple matter of point and touch and hope! And no tripod.  ;-)

Something else: the first set of files I made were in the Adobe (1998) colour space because I hope to run off a couple of prints, but when switching to the web colour (something 1966-2) I found the changes required contrast and colour alterations, and I don't feel I can ever do quite the same thing twice. As oddly, looking at the wooden plank shot as it appears in my post and then switching to it on the link, I feel they don't match, which is strange because they are the same file. Maybe it's all an illusion of the mind.

Rob C

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #748 on: February 22, 2012, 05:22:50 pm »

Hi Rob.
I have the same issue with a Zeiss 35-70 lens on my 5DII. It gives the Canon lenses a total hiding, but I need live view to be sure of the focus. For hand-held I intend trying getting it roughly in focus and then rocking back and forwards for the final shot, and then seeing what percentage of sharp images I can get. I'm hoping it will come down to practice. At least with digital there is no cost to this.
As a result of a recent post I tried switching to my left eye. On the one hand, it never felt natural, but on the other hand  it took a surprisingly short time to get it working reliably. Probably if I'd stuck with it then it may have become second nature. Fortunately the sight in my right eye is still good.
As to photos matching, there are so many factors including background colour. I no longer worry about it too much. I'm not doing product shots. I usually use Lightroom to convert to srgb for web display, and seem to get consistent results. More so than any other software I've used.
David
Logged

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #749 on: February 22, 2012, 08:27:13 pm »


Infinite Towers & Heat Waves, California Desert by tanngrisnir3, on Flickr

Still trying to get the hang of using legacy glass on a modern digital camera.  On a GH2, a Rokkor 200mm is the equiv of 400mm, which brings things ridiculously close, it's front heavy, my remote shutter release is fritzy, there's wind, a crappy plastic-y tripod and heat waves.

And as someone who learned strictly on digital, I keep forgetting to focus and adjust the aperture.  Somewhat important, those two things.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #750 on: February 23, 2012, 04:18:19 am »

As a result of a recent post I tried switching to my left eye. On the one hand, it never felt natural, but on the other hand  it took a surprisingly short time to get it working reliably. Probably if I'd stuck with it then it may have become second nature. Fortunately the sight in my right eye is still good.
David


Hi David

I remember reading something Frank Horvat wrote about himself somewhere - it may have been in his website - of a problem he's had with his eyes. As I recall, it took him out of the game for a while. I'm not sure how/if it was fully resolved, but it does have quite a psychological effect on confidence, especially ¡f thinking about doing people shots where reaction speed is very important.

http://www.horvatland.com

As it stands at the moment, I find that composing with the right eye is natural but not so with the left; however, focussing is okay with the left so I'm not totally out yet!

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #751 on: February 23, 2012, 04:29:06 am »

[Still trying to get the hang of using legacy glass on a modern digital camera.  On a GH2, a Rokkor 200mm is the equiv of 400mm, which brings things ridiculously close, it's front heavy, my remote shutter release is fritzy, there's wind, a crappy plastic-y tripod and heat waves.

And as someone who learned strictly on digital, I keep forgetting to focus and adjust the aperture.  Somewhat important, those two things.


The shot you chose to show here is quite a difficult one to bring off with long lenses. I think I understand your intention, which I believe to be to show the compression of perspective that long lenses offer, and also the effect of shallow DOF. However, if you look at some of the classic shots with really long objectives, then most of the ones that I, at any rate, remember, include a single subject/object within the frame that's very isolated. Think Dr Zhivago's figure in the desert or Hans Feurer fashion shots. Your shot doesn't really have the advantage of such a principal subject, and using the pylons themselves is a bit difficult because of their insubstantiality. Another great shot in my memory is one somebody posted here (I think!) of a jet plane in heat waves at the end of a runway...

Keep working on it - can make you feel really good when it happens!

Rob C

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #752 on: February 23, 2012, 02:26:07 pm »


The shot you chose to show here is quite a difficult one to bring off with long lenses. I think I understand your intention, which I believe to be to show the compression of perspective that long lenses offer, and also the effect of shallow DOF. However, if you look at some of the classic shots with really long objectives, then most of the ones that I, at any rate, remember, include a single subject/object within the frame that's very isolated. Think Dr Zhivago's figure in the desert or Hans Feurer fashion shots. Your shot doesn't really have the advantage of such a principal subject, and using the pylons themselves is a bit difficult because of their insubstantiality. Another great shot in my memory is one somebody posted here (I think!) of a jet plane in heat waves at the end of a runway...

Keep working on it - can make you feel really good when it happens!

Rob C

Thanks!  You're right about what I was trying to do, but I thought the gap at infinity distance between the two sets of towers would serve the same purpose as (as you rightly point out) have an actual physical thing or object there as a subject.  IOW, not having a subject there would be the actual subject.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #753 on: February 23, 2012, 03:53:37 pm »

Thanks!  You're right about what I was trying to do, but I thought the gap at infinity distance between the two sets of towers would serve the same purpose as (as you rightly point out) have an actual physical thing or object there as a subject.  IOW, not having a subject there would be the actual subject.


Right, I see what you mean, but then to achieve that you'd probably have been better to focus at the most distant pylons; it's probably always going to be the crisp bit that makes the eye go to it.

Interestingly, you've done what I generally find that I do on the rare occasions I try landscape: I end up producing something that needs a figure of some sort to make the point, whatever I think that might be at the time. And to revert to another thread, that's not a talent I have for it: it's a lack of talent for it, apply myself for as many hours as I may!

;-)

Rob C

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #754 on: February 23, 2012, 11:31:14 pm »

But you do great abstracts, Rob, even without figures in them. So keep on showing more of them.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #755 on: February 25, 2012, 01:50:51 pm »

But you do great abstracts, Rob, even without figures in them. So keep on showing more of them.

Eric




Okay, Eric: here's another one, reworked a bit to raise/change the colours slightly. Abstract enough, but I'm afraid I couldn't quite bring myself to do it sans figure...

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 05:07:45 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #756 on: February 25, 2012, 05:44:57 pm »

You've reduced the scene to the essentials. Nice!

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #757 on: February 26, 2012, 01:59:41 pm »

I got a weird abstract thrown in my lap this morning.

A pigeon and a small falcon hanging on his neck banged into our window.
You can see the imprint of the falcon's head and beak in the right upper part, the rest is pigeon dust



The pigeon did not survive, the falcon was off before I got my camera out.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #758 on: February 26, 2012, 05:11:51 pm »

Nifty! Good thing the window didn't break. Would have spoiled the photo.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Without Prejudice
« Reply #759 on: February 26, 2012, 05:16:07 pm »

Looks like you managed to capture the elusive, incredibly rare moment of spirit leaving the (pigeon) body! ;)
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 75   Go Up