Meant to say "read it (the headstone engraving)."
Tom C. >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: PESO - Tree in Cemetery 2 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:38:21 -0700 > >Hi Rick, > >My suggestion would be far less DOF. Probably to the point where we could >just detect that there were other headstones. I think the subject matter >has a lot of potential. The background seems to be cluttered and I find my >self straining to read it. > >BTW, people are just dying to get in there. > >Tom C. > > > >From: Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: PESO - Tree in Cemetery 2 > >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:58:40 -0800 (PST) > > > >Thanks Marcus, Bruce, and Marnie. > > > >This is turning out to be a tougher subject than I > >expected. I took about 30 frames Monday, with the > >fisheye, the 16-45, and the 50/1.7. > > > >The space is tough, and the available angles are > >restricted by an ugly modern building on one side, and > >an old mansion being rehabbed on the other. > > > >The wide-angle shots made the tree and headstone lean > >away from each other (comical, but not esthetic!), > >even when I was scrunched down as low as the space > >permitted. > > > >Guess this one needs more playing with. > > > >Rick > > > > > >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2007 7:11:37 P.M. Pacific > > > Standard Time, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > RW> I took Monday off (having worked all weekend), > > > and > > > RW> headed back to the cemetery in the late > > > afternoon to > > > RW> work with that interesting tree. This is one > > > of the > > > RW> results: > > > > > > RW> > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5594078 > > > > > > RW> This is the original from a few days earlier: > > > > > > RW> > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5568647 > > > > > > RW> ist D, FA 50/1.7, ISO 200, RAW, 1/250 @ f.4.5 > > > (I don't > > > RW> know why I set the aperture so small...), via > > > ACR and > > > RW> IE4. > > > > > > RW> Cheers and catcalls both welcome. > > > > > > RW> Rick > > > > > > ========== > > > Agree with Bruce this shot is not a lot different > > > than the first one. IE in > > > terms of distance and positioning, etc. You could > > > can move backward and > > > forward. Or use other lenses or shoot lower down or > > > closer. Uh, trying to say > > > maybe you ought to think about how to "work" the > > > scene. Over the years, being on > > > this list, I've come to understand more and more > > > how much one scene can be > > > worked. The answer is, a lot. > > > > > > Just my .02 cents. > > > > > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > >http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Never Miss an Email > >Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! > >http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >[email protected] > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
