I was on the road and moving when it was taken, about 40-50k. ISO 400 and bright sun so I guess exposure was about 1/500 f16 freezing the action.
Powell >I like it. Unusual perspective. I think it would have been >nicer if the car had been on the road and there had been some >indication that it was in motion (though not blur.) > >Cheers, >Gautam > >On 4/15/06, Powell Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I was given about 25 feet, 8 meters of very expired, June 1979, bulk Tri-X >> which had been cold stored. So I shot about a dozen frames with the MX and >> the Pancake lens. The film is fogged and pretty well un-useable producing >> very grainy results with shadows blocked up. The rest of the film will >> soon be in the trash unless someone can suggest an interesting use for it. >> >> A couple of shots of my sons house construction were worth saving and then >> there is this one. It is really bad! I think the Pancake lens does a nice >> job of shooting into the sun but the dirty windshield sure adds to the flair. >> >> So why do I kind of like this shot? Just my poor taste? Or is it >> interesting to anyone else? >> >> http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image-X.htm >> >> My dirty windshield does not make life very secure for the nearly invisible >> pedestrians. >> >> Powell
